From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: git log -z doesn't separate commits with NULs Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:11:04 +0100 Message-ID: <201202242311.04787.jnareb@gmail.com> References: <4F46036F.3040406@gmail.com> <20120224204615.GB21447@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vk43cx7c2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff King , Nikolaj Shurkaev , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 24 23:11:17 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S13MA-0003sw-0d for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:11:14 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758128Ab2BXWLJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:11:09 -0500 Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:36461 "EHLO mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754497Ab2BXWLH (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:11:07 -0500 Received: by eaah12 with SMTP id h12so1283803eaa.19 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jnareb@gmail.com designates 10.14.94.200 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.14.94.200; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jnareb@gmail.com designates 10.14.94.200 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jnareb@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=jnareb@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.14.94.200]) by 10.14.94.200 with SMTP id n48mr2531273eef.48.1330121466332 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:11:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:message-id; bh=JDYIJArP9r32WASHD7zb9nw1Cu9k2SfMhAj4jOFs494=; b=xxlaHn6LO6ev7WRJ1qxD4QZtPK8/hq/hIKYWFrKNnnvkOIcKX8Kg4C+xk9oJWYbGNV HglRrsK09wjnhjSaQP+MgmAfDl1wqxzSaLRHOS8HosGlP+D5/BWSLD6LymXZCSJ+uPj9 k8h6ReZNGfBgEaps06OLWcrOrOS3D3qk2Y4qI= Received: by 10.14.94.200 with SMTP id n48mr1879874eef.48.1330121466169; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.13] (abws184.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl. [83.8.242.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a58sm23077637eeb.8.2012.02.24.14.11.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:11:05 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 In-Reply-To: <7vk43cx7c2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > True. That is also a slightly dangerous thing to do, though, because you > > are omitting full patches in the middle that touch the same paths as the > > patches you include.... > > ... So > > perhaps we are better off to refer the user to git-log(1), say that > > commit limiting options in general would work, but be careful with > > sending a partial result. > > You seem to have spelled out everything I originally wrote in my reply > that I later deleted before sending it out, and I think the reason that > brought you to the three-line conclusion is the same one that made me I > delete them ;-). > > Using a partial patch essentially has the same risk as cherry-picking a > commit into different context, and it is a more generic issue that this > particular manual page should not waste tons of space to teach readers > about. I think "Be careful and clueful" is sufficient and the best we can > do without writing a textbook on distributed software development > disciplines. Perhaps git-format-patch should mention that it was created with path-limited patch in some email pseudo-header like X-Pathspec: or something, don't you think? -- Jakub Narebski Poland