Re: [PATCH] format-patch: respect --stat when explicitly specified
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:17:59 +0100
- From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] format-patch: respect --stat when explicitly specified
On 11/06/18 16:56, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 11:48 AM Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Commit 43662b23abbd
>> ("format-patch: keep cover-letter diffstat wrapped in 72 columns") made
>> format-patch keep the diffstat to within 72 characters. However, it does
>> this even when --stat is explicitly set on the command line.
>> Make it possible to explicitly override the new mechanism, using --stat,
>> matching the functionality before this change. This also matches the
>> output in the case of non-cover-letter files.
>> Cc: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reported-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> In TianoCore we have LotsOfGloriousFilesNamedInReallyLongCamelCase, so
>> our official submission guidelines specify the use of --stat.
>> builtin/log.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> diff --git a/builtin/log.c b/builtin/log.c
>> index 061d4fd86..07e6ae2c1 100644
>> --- a/builtin/log.c
>> +++ b/builtin/log.c
>> @@ -1009,7 +1009,8 @@ static void show_diffstat(struct rev_info *rev,
>> memcpy(&opts, &rev->diffopt, sizeof(opts));
>> opts.output_format = DIFF_FORMAT_SUMMARY | DIFF_FORMAT_DIFFSTAT;
>> - opts.stat_width = MAIL_DEFAULT_WRAP;
>> + if (rev->diffopt.stat_width == -1)
> I don't think we get -1 here when stat_width is not defined. The
> "undefined" value is zero but I'm pretty sure we get MAIL_DEFAULT_WRAP
> in here unless you specify --stat.
> So I think you can just drop the below assignment. But if you want to
> be on the safe side, check for zero stat_width instead of -1 and set
Looks like I'll have to test v2 then...
>> + opts.stat_width = MAIL_DEFAULT_WRAP;
> How about a test to make sure this will not be broken in future?
Oh, looks like I won't have to test this patch at all! ;)
(Just kidding, I'll test the next iteration.)