Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] range-diff: add a --no-patch option to show a summary

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> Calling this --[no-]patch might make it harder to integrate it to
>> format-patch later, though.  I suspect that people would expect
>> "format-patch --no-patch ..." to omit both the patch part of the
>> range-diff output *AND* the patch that should be applied to the
>> codebase (it of course would defeat the point of format-patch, so
>> today's format-patch would not pay attention to --no-patch, of
>> course).  We need to be careful not to break that when it happens.
> Same concern on my side, which is why I was thinking of other, less
> confusing, names, such as --summarize or such, though even that is too
> general against the full set of git-format-patch options. It could,
> perhaps be a separate option, say, "git format-patch
> --range-changes=<prev>" or something, which would embed the equivalent
> of "git range-diff --no-patch <prev>...<current>" in the cover letter.

I actually am perfectly fine with --no-patch.  My "concern" was
merely that we should be careful to make sure that we do not stop
producing patches when we plug this patch to format-patch when
"format-patch --no-patch" is given; rather, it should only suppress
the patch part of range-diff shown in the cover letter.