Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> - [--rfc] [--subject-prefix=<subject-prefix>]
>> + [--rfc[=<rfc>]] [--subject-prefix=<subject-prefix>]
>
> Nit: in the documentation we use "<rfc>" for the placeholder but in
> the code we use "<extra>"
You're right. Will fix.
>> @@ -1932,7 +1944,9 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> N_("mark the series as Nth re-roll")),
>> OPT_INTEGER(0, "filename-max-length", &fmt_patch_name_max,
>> N_("max length of output filename")),
>> - OPT_BOOL(0, "rfc", &rfc, N_("use [RFC PATCH] instead of [PATCH]")),
>> + OPT_CALLBACK_F(0, "rfc", &rfc, N_("extra"),
>> + N_("add <extra> (default 'RFC') before 'PATCH'"),
>> + PARSE_OPT_NONEG|PARSE_OPT_OPTARG, rfc_callback),
>
> This is a change in behavior as it looks like we previously accepted
> "--no-rfc" is that deliberate?
I just matched the subject-prefix without thinking. Will fix.
Here is what I plan to squash in, but we are about to enter the
pre-release stabilization period, so the progress on this new
feature will have to slow down.
Thanks.
builtin/log.c | 10 +++++-----
t/t4014-format-patch.sh | 16 ++++++++++++----
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git i/builtin/log.c w/builtin/log.c
index 2d6e0f3688..0e9c84e51d 100644
--- i/builtin/log.c
+++ w/builtin/log.c
@@ -1499,10 +1499,10 @@ static int rfc_callback(const struct option *opt, const char *arg,
{
struct strbuf *rfc;
- BUG_ON_OPT_NEG(unset);
rfc = opt->value;
strbuf_reset(rfc);
- strbuf_addstr(rfc, arg ? arg : "RFC");
+ if (!unset)
+ strbuf_addstr(rfc, arg ? arg : "RFC");
return 0;
}
@@ -1944,9 +1944,9 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
N_("mark the series as Nth re-roll")),
OPT_INTEGER(0, "filename-max-length", &fmt_patch_name_max,
N_("max length of output filename")),
- OPT_CALLBACK_F(0, "rfc", &rfc, N_("extra"),
- N_("add <extra> (default 'RFC') before 'PATCH'"),
- PARSE_OPT_NONEG|PARSE_OPT_OPTARG, rfc_callback),
+ OPT_CALLBACK_F(0, "rfc", &rfc, N_("rfc"),
+ N_("add <rfc> (default 'RFC') before 'PATCH'"),
+ PARSE_OPT_OPTARG, rfc_callback),
OPT_STRING(0, "cover-from-description", &cover_from_description_arg,
N_("cover-from-description-mode"),
N_("generate parts of a cover letter based on a branch's description")),
diff --git i/t/t4014-format-patch.sh w/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
index 905858da35..645c4189f9 100755
--- i/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
+++ w/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
@@ -1368,22 +1368,30 @@ test_expect_success 'empty subject prefix does not have extra space' '
test_cmp expect actual
'
-test_expect_success '--rfc' '
+test_expect_success '--rfc and --no-rfc' '
cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/1] header with . in it
EOF
git format-patch -n -1 --stdout --rfc >patch &&
grep "^Subject:" patch >actual &&
- test_cmp expect actual
+ test_cmp expect actual &&
+ git format-patch -n -1 --stdout --rfc --no-rfc >patch &&
+ sed -e "s/RFC //" expect >expect-raw &&
+ grep "^Subject:" patch >actual &&
+ test_cmp expect-raw actual
'
-test_expect_success '--rfc=WIP' '
+test_expect_success '--rfc=WIP and --rfc=' '
cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
Subject: [WIP PATCH 1/1] header with . in it
EOF
git format-patch -n -1 --stdout --rfc=WIP >patch &&
grep "^Subject:" patch >actual &&
- test_cmp expect actual
+ test_cmp expect actual &&
+ git format-patch -n -1 --stdout --rfc --rfc= >patch &&
+ sed -e "s/WIP //" expect >expect-raw &&
+ grep "^Subject:" patch >actual &&
+ test_cmp expect-raw actual
'
test_expect_success '--rfc does not overwrite prefix' '
