On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:30:51PM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > The last patch is dropped for now (the automatic --compose stuff) > > because I'm not sure which option to add, and that I don't care enough > > about it to spend more time on it. > > > > I think I've incorporated most of the stuff people asked about in this > > series. > > > > [PATCH 1/4] git send-email: make the message file name more specific. > > [PATCH 2/4] git send-email: interpret unknown files as revision lists > > [PATCH 3/4] git send-email: add --annotate option > > [PATCH 4/4] git send-email: ask less questions when --compose is used. > > Thanks. > > It is somewhat unfortunate that an explicit --no-format-patch works > exactly the same way as not giving the option at all. Unless I'm mistaken in my code, and I may really be, it doesn't. --format-patch says that in case of conflicts, the "revision" kind of argument wins, --no-format-patch says that the "file" one wins, without any it dies with an error. It's really a tristate, but maybe I missed your point ? > I would have expected that it would guess and warn if you did not give > either, and it would not even guess (i.e. file is mbox, dir is > maildir) and error out if there is a leftover option in @rev_list_opts > if the user explicitly asked the command not act as a frontend to > format patch. Oh you mean that if one use --no-format-patch you don't wan't _any_ option to be passed to format-patch ? Hmmm I don't know, both what I did and that are sane, I don't really know what to chose. But if we're going to go down this road, _your_ --no-format-patch and --format-patch don't quite do the opposite, as --format-patch still allows files to be passed to it. If we're really doing this, then maybe we want a 5-state kind of option: 1 disallow any file name ; 2 if conflict, chose the revision ; 3 barf if any conflict arises (default) ; 4 if conflict chose the file ; 5 disallow any kind of revision argument. My proposal implements 2 as --format-patch, 3 as default, and 4 as --no-format-patch. You propose basically (5) for --no-format-patch instead, well I say this makes sense, but it's somehow "sad" not to have (1) too in that case. But in the end, I believe this _may_ quite be slightly over-engineered in the end ;) I would gladly implement the combination people like most, as soon as I can pass format-patch option a way or the other, I'm happy :) > I will queue the series in 'pu' because I suspect you would like a chance > to amend out a "print foo" from the second commit ;-) *ooops* -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp4DvVeW6uDh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
