Kyle Meyer <kyle@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> send-email supports specifying format-patch options. However, some
> valid format-patch short options trigger an error because Getopt's
> default auto-abbreviation is enabled. For example, with
>
> git send-email -v 3 @{u}
>
> the -v is consumed as send-email's --validate, and 3 is passed on to
> the format-patch call, leading to
>
> fatal: ambiguous argument '3': unknown revision or path not in the
> working tree. [...]
>
> Disable Getopt's auto-abbreviation feature so that such options are
> properly relayed to format-patch. With this change, there is some
> risk of breaking external scripts that rely on the abbreviation, but
> that is hopefully unlikely given that Git does not advertise support
> for auto-abbreviation and most subcommands do not support it.
I personally have no sympathy to those who drive "format-patch" from
inside "send-email".
Having said that.
Many subcommands of "git" do take uniquely abbreviated double-dashed
option names, but it is true that we do not allow --vanything to be
given as -v even when there is no other double-dashed option that
begins with 'v', so "git send-email -v" that stands for "git
send-email --validate" indeed is an odd thing.
But robbing "git send-email --val" that expands to "--validate" from
the users is going a bit too far, I am afraid. The right solution
for allowing "-v 3" given to "format-patch" I think is to make
send-email understand it and pass that through. The presence of
both ("validate" => \$validate) and ("v" => \$reroll_count) in the
GetOptions() argument would prevent "-v" to be taken as "--validate"
while still allowing "--val" to be used as an abbrevatiion, no?
By the way, do we advertise support for any and all options to
format-patch when the feature to drive it from send-email is used?
Some of the options (e.g. "-o <directory>") do not make any sense in
the context I would suspect.
