Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> The patches 1, 5 fix small issues in the reference backends. The other >>> patches 2, 3, 4 & 6, each add one of the new sub-commands. >>> >>> The series is based off master, with 'kn/ref-transaction-symref' merged >>> in. There seem to be no conflicts with 'next' or 'seen'. >> >> Wait. There is something fishy going on. >> ... >> Is this actually a single patch submission of 9/9 alone? Patches >> 1-8/9 are all old ones that are in 'master' already. >> >> Puzzled... > > I think this is just a mess up in the range diff, I haven't changed > anything locally. So adding the correct range diff here: Quite honestly, I care much less about the range-diff that is almost unintelligible than the actual patches. Your title line says 0/6, your updated range-diff presumably have 1: to 6:? As a sanity check mechanism, the list of commits and the overall diffstat is a more useful part in the cover letter message so that I (or any other recipients) can use to compare against the list of messages that appeared on the list. We may want to teach "format-patch --range-diff" to place the output of range-diff _below_ the list of commits and the overall diffstat in the cover letter (and at the end of the patch for a single patch topic). I'll ignore the range-diff in the original cover letter and see if the rest makes sense. Thanks.
