Rearrange git-format-patch synopsis to improve clarity.
PATCH 1/1 Rearrange git-format-patch synopsis to improve clarity.
--- Documentation/git-format-patch.txt | 5 +++-- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Documentation/git-format-patch.txt +3 -2
@@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ git-format-patch - Prepare patches for e-mail submission SYNOPSIS -------- [verse] -'git-format-patch' [-n | -N | -k] [-o <dir> | --stdout] [--thread] +'git-format-patch' [-k] [-o <dir> | --stdout] [--thread] [--attach[=<boundary>] | --inline[=<boundary>]] [-s | --signoff] [<common diff options>] - [--start-number <n>] [--numbered-files] + [-n | --numbered-files | -N | --no-numbered] + [--start-number <n>] [--in-reply-to=Message-Id] [--suffix=.<sfx>] [--ignore-if-in-upstream] [--subject-prefix=Subject-Prefix]
Signature · 1 line
1.5.3.1
Thanks
Documentation/git-format-patch.txt git-format-patch - Prepare patches for e-mail submission · line 16
Quoted 4 lines · David Symonds
[-s | --signoff] [<common diff options>]Documentation/git-format-patch.txt +2
-1- [--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?
Dave.
Quoted 6 lines · David Symonds
Documentation/git-format-patch.txt git-format-patch - Prepare patches for e-mail submission · line 16
Quoted 4 lines · David Symonds
[-s | --signoff] [<common diff options>]Documentation/git-format-patch.txt +2
-1- [--start-number <n>] [--numbered-files] + [-n | --numbered-files | -N | --no-numbered] + [--start-number <n>]
Quoted 9 lines
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".
Signature · 3 lines
Andreas Ericsson [email protected] OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
Quoted 17 lines · Andreas Ericsson
Quoted 6 lines · David Symonds
Documentation/git-format-patch.txt git-format-patch - Prepare patches for e-mail submission · line 16
Quoted 4 lines · David Symonds
[-s | --signoff] [<common diff options>]Documentation/git-format-patch.txt +2
-1- [--start-number <n>] [--numbered-files] + [-n | --numbered-files | -N | --no-numbered] + [--start-number <n>]Quoted 9 lines
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?
Quoted 5 lines
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.
Quoted 6 lines · David Symonds
Documentation/git-format-patch.txt git-format-patch - Prepare patches for e-mail submission · line 16
Quoted 4 lines · David Symonds
[-s | --signoff] [<common diff options>]Documentation/git-format-patch.txt +2
-1- [--start-number <n>] [--numbered-files] + [-n | --numbered-files | -N | --no-numbered] + [--start-number <n>]
Quoted 8 lines
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?
There are two forms of numbered file output names:
the traditional "0001-Foo-the-bar" and just "1" styles. Please don't break that. Both are needed.
Thanks,
jdl
Quoted 7 lines · Jon Loeliger
Quoted 6 lines · David Symonds
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.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Would you accept a patch that changed --numbered-files to --numbered, and kept the former as a synonym?
There are two forms of numbered file output names:
the traditional "0001-Foo-the-bar" and just "1" styles. Please don't break that. Both are needed.
Oh, I certainly wasn't proposing removing any functionality; merely renaming the option to select it so as to be consistent.
Dave.