Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: >> As an experiment, this message has the range-diff at the end, not >> before the primary part of the patch text. I think this format >> should be easier to read for reviewers. > > Huh, interesting. I do like that format better indeed. You did that > manually instead of using `--range-diff`, right? Yes. To me, "format-patch --range-diff" is a lot more cumbersome to use than running "format-patch", open the result in Emacs, and then doing "\C-u \M-! git range-diff ..." to insert its output, as I'll be opening it in the editor for typofixes anyway.
