On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 10:29 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> when I do
>
> $ git send-email -v --dry-run --to=me -1
> /tmp/UdA2hemFfD/v-dry-run-0001-x86-microcode-Include-vendor-headers-into-.patch
> (body) Adding cc: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@xxxxxxxxx> from line 'Suggested-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@xxxxxxxxx>'
>
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH v--dry-run] x86/microcode: Include vendor headers into microcode.h
> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 18:34:39 +0200
> Message-ID: <20230809163439.26391-1-bp@xxxxxxxxx>
> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.42.0.rc0.25.ga82fb66fed25
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Send this email? ([y]es|[n]o|[e]dit|[q]uit|[a]ll):
> ---
>
> The -v and --dry-run are glued together and stuck as text after "[PATCH"
> in the subject.
>
> Without -v, it works as expected, see below.
>
> Shouldn't the option parsing error out with "-v is unrecognized option"
> or so?
-v is a valid option to git format-patch:
-v <n>, --reroll-count=<n>
Mark the series as the <n>-th iteration of the topic. The
output filenames have v<n> prepended to them, and the subject prefix
("PATCH" by
default, but configurable via the --subject-prefix option)
has ` v<n>` appended to it. E.g. --reroll-count=4 may produce
v4-0001-add-makefile.patch file that has "Subject: [PATCH
v4 1/20] Add makefile" in it. <n> does not have to be an integer
(e.g.
"--reroll-count=4.4", or "--reroll-count=4rev2" are
allowed), but the downside of using such a reroll-count is that the
range-diff/interdiff with
the previous version does not state exactly which version
the new interation is compared against.
it takes a required argument, and inserts "v<argument>" into the
[PATCH] block to describe the version.
Typically the argument should be a number, but you happened to provide
it "--dry-run". Presumably assuming that the -v means "verbose" as it
might in most other applications.
In short: this is working as intended, but it is somewhat confusing
that it doesn't validate the argument at all. It is intentional to
allow non-numeric strings, but maybe we ought to validate that it
doesn't start with -- to avoid such confusion here.
In short: -v doesn't mean verbose, it is a valid option, and while its
a bit non-intuitive in this case, I think it is working as designed
now.
Thanks,
Jake
