Carlo Arenas <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > +If you give a single <commit> and nothing else, it is taken as the >> > +<since> of the first form. If you want to format everything from the >> > +beginning of history up until <commit>, use the `--root` option: >> > +`git format-patch --root <commit>`. >> >> Supposed that we have following commit graph: >> >> a --- b --- c --- d --- e --- f (main) >> \ >> --- g --- h --- i (mywork, HEAD) >> >> According to your edit, `git format-patch <c>` and `git format-patch >> --root <i>` are equivalent, right? > > I didn't change the definition of --root with my edit, but I guess it > is still confusing. The explanation you gave Bagas describes what these two variants, i.e. "<c> alone" and "--root <c>", mean and how they behave very clearly. In fact, the 4-line description is designed to encourage readers to compare a pair of cases like these, using the same commit in the middle of the history you get two quite different set of commits with and without "--root". You can ask for "--root <i>" to get a-b-c-g-h-i but it is not a good example as there is no useful contrasting example that does not use "--root", as "git format-patch i" would be showing an empty set. The fact that somebody wanted to compare between "<c>" and "--root <i>" might be a sign that the 4-line description is still somehow confusing, but I cannot quite figure out what needs to be improved in the description to avoid such a confusion (IOW, I fail to see how the description can lead to such a confusion). Thanks.
