* [PATCH next] git-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options
@ 2009-01-04 16:11 Markus Heidelberg
2009-01-04 16:16 ` Markus Heidelberg
2009-01-04 17:35 ` Miklos Vajna
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Markus Heidelberg @ 2009-01-04 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gitster; +Cc: git
Signed-off-by: Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de>
---
What is the preferred way to say the patch is against next? In the
subject like this?
Another question: should this patch be split up into two, one for
maint/master and another for next?
Documentation/git-cherry.txt | 2 +-
builtin-log.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-cherry.txt b/Documentation/git-cherry.txt
index 556ea23..7deefda 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-cherry.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-cherry.txt
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ git-cherry - Find commits not merged upstream
SYNOPSIS
--------
-'git cherry' [-v] [<upstream>] [<head>] [<limit>]
+'git cherry' [-v] [<upstream> [<head> [<limit>]]]
DESCRIPTION
-----------
diff --git a/builtin-log.c b/builtin-log.c
index 243f857..7e9616e 100644
--- a/builtin-log.c
+++ b/builtin-log.c
@@ -1071,7 +1071,7 @@ static int add_pending_commit(const char *arg, struct rev_info *revs, int flags)
}
static const char cherry_usage[] =
-"git cherry [-v] [<upstream>] [<head>] [<limit>]";
+"git cherry [-v] [<upstream> [<head> [<limit>]]]";
int cmd_cherry(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
{
struct rev_info revs;
--
1.6.1.35.g0c23
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH next] git-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options
2009-01-04 16:11 [PATCH next] git-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options Markus Heidelberg
@ 2009-01-04 16:16 ` Markus Heidelberg
2009-01-04 17:35 ` Miklos Vajna
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Markus Heidelberg @ 2009-01-04 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gitster; +Cc: git
Markus Heidelberg, 04.01.2009:
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de>
> ---
>
> What is the preferred way to say the patch is against next? In the
> subject like this?
> Another question: should this patch be split up into two, one for
> maint/master and another for next?
For the second patch against next I meant it being based on origin/next
that already includes the extracted patch for maint/master.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH next] git-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options
2009-01-04 16:11 [PATCH next] git-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options Markus Heidelberg
2009-01-04 16:16 ` Markus Heidelberg
@ 2009-01-04 17:35 ` Miklos Vajna
2009-01-04 18:01 ` Markus Heidelberg
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Miklos Vajna @ 2009-01-04 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Heidelberg; +Cc: gitster, git
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:11:22PM +0100, Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de> wrote:
> Another question: should this patch be split up into two, one for
> maint/master and another for next?
AFAIK sending patches against next is not preferred at all. You should
send your patches against master, or - if you have a strong reason - on
top of a given topic branch.
In the later case I just use to write "This applies on top of
'xx/foo-bar'." between the three dashes and the diffstat.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH next] git-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options
2009-01-04 17:35 ` Miklos Vajna
@ 2009-01-04 18:01 ` Markus Heidelberg
2009-01-04 22:47 ` Miklos Vajna
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Markus Heidelberg @ 2009-01-04 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Miklos Vajna; +Cc: gitster, git
Miklos Vajna, 04.01.2009:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:11:22PM +0100, Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de> wrote:
> > Another question: should this patch be split up into two, one for
> > maint/master and another for next?
>
> AFAIK sending patches against next is not preferred at all.
>From Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
If you are preparing a work based on "next" branch,
that is fine, but please mark it as such.
I guess the only reason is a required dependency not available in
'master'.
> You should
> send your patches against master, or - if you have a strong reason - on
> top of a given topic branch.
This patch depends on a commit in 'next'. But right, I could have
mentioned that it's against 'mh/cherry-default' as Junio suggested a few
days ago.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH next] git-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options
2009-01-04 18:01 ` Markus Heidelberg
@ 2009-01-04 22:47 ` Miklos Vajna
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Miklos Vajna @ 2009-01-04 22:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Heidelberg; +Cc: gitster, git
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 428 bytes --]
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 07:01:18PM +0100, Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de> wrote:
> > AFAIK sending patches against next is not preferred at all.
>
> From Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
>
> If you are preparing a work based on "next" branch,
> that is fine, but please mark it as such.
Ouch, then sorry for the misinformation. (Especially that it turns out
Junio added that line in 45d2b286.)
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-01-04 22:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-01-04 16:11 [PATCH next] git-cherry usage: correct nesting of commit-ish options Markus Heidelberg
2009-01-04 16:16 ` Markus Heidelberg
2009-01-04 17:35 ` Miklos Vajna
2009-01-04 18:01 ` Markus Heidelberg
2009-01-04 22:47 ` Miklos Vajna
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).