On 11/6/07, Andreas Ericsson <ae@xxxxxx> wrote: > David Symonds wrote: > > On 11/5/07, David Symonds <dsymonds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> [-s | --signoff] [<common diff options>] > >> - [--start-number <n>] [--numbered-files] > >> + [-n | --numbered-files | -N | --no-numbered] > >> + [--start-number <n>] > > > > Now that I look at it again, it seems the long options look quite > > inconsistent. I think it should be either > > --numbered-files/--no-numbered-files or --numbered/--no-numbered. My > > preference is with the latter (for brevity), but that breaks > > backward-compatibility. > > > > Would you accept a patch that changed --numbered-files to --numbered, > > and kept the former as a synonym? > > > > I thought files were always numbered, but the [PATCH m/n] wasn't. Have I > missed something? > > If your --numbered-files is supposed to affect only file-numbering, I'd > suggest *not* using --numbered, as it's ambiguous with "number-subject". You're right. There's both --numbered ([PATCH n/m] stuff) and --numbered-files (0001.patch instead of 0001-subject-line.patch). I'll revise my patch to clarify this. Dave. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
