From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] format-patch: autonumber by default Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:54:00 +0200 Message-ID: <48E4D278.1000103@viscovery.net> References: <1222946860-15518-1-git-send-email-giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org, "Shawn O. Pearce" To: Giuseppe Bilotta X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 02 15:55:34 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KlOeE-0005eW-Mo for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:55:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752907AbYJBNyH (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:54:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752871AbYJBNyG (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:54:06 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:32112 "EHLO lilzmailso01.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752754AbYJBNyF (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:54:05 -0400 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso01.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1KlOcy-0002qk-HU; Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:54:01 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4993C6B7; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:54:00 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Giuseppe Bilotta schrieb: > Now, about the reason for this patch: I would say that the most common > use-case of format-patch being used to prepare multiple patches is > when one plans on sending a patchset. When format.numbering is set to > auto, single-patches will still be extracted without numbers, but > patchset will be properly numbered. > > Of course, there may be cases where one doesn't want numbering (for > which there is the -N flag already), and of course we want to give the > user the choice to disable autonumbering at the config level, for > which there is the new noauto option for format.numbering. I recall that this has been discussed (months or years ago), but I don't recall whether there was a conclusion or whether the change was dismissed. Did you research the ML archives? -- Hannes