Re: [PATCH v7] format-patch: allow a non-integral version numbers

[ZheNing Hu <adlternative@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 于2021年3月20日周六 上午1:29写道：
>
> "ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > From: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@gmail.com>
> >
> > Usually we can only use `format-patch -v<n>` to generate integral
> > version numbers patches, but sometimes a same fixup should be
>
> I guess that you meant "a small fixup" here?
>

Yes.

> > labeled as a non-integral version like `v1.1`, so teach `format-patch`
> > to allow a non-integral version which may be helpful to send those
> > patches.
> >
> > `<n>` can be any string, such as `-v1.1`.
>
> I would probably use "such as '3.1' or '4rev2'" (without the leading
> "-v", as that is how you introduce <n> in the first sentence)
> instead in the proposed log message, and give a pair of examples to
> show both fractional numbers and non numbers are accepted in the
> documentation, if I were doing this patch.
>

Sure, either a "fractional" version or a "non-nummbers" version can be
accepted. I will complete the expansion of these documents.

> > In the case where it
> > is a non-integral value, the "Range-diff" and "Interdiff"
> > headers will not include the previous version.
>
> Which is rather unfortunate, but I do not care strongly enough (I
> would rather discurage use of partial rerolls with these fractinal
> bits anyway).
>

Well, now this patch (no previous-count) was born in the previous
suggestion of Denton Liu. I also hope it can be more practical.

> > Range-diff vs v6:
> >
> >  1:  d5f5e3f073de ! 1:  95cfe75ee7da format-patch: allow a non-integral version numbers
> >      @@ builtin/log.c: static void print_bases(struct base_tree_info *bases, FILE *file)
> >       +       int v;
> >       +
> >       +       /* RFC may be v0, so allow -v1 to diff against v0 */
> >      -+       if (reroll_count && !strtol_i(reroll_count, 10, &v))
> >      ++       if (reroll_count && !strtol_i(reroll_count, 10, &v) &&
> >      ++           v >= 1)
> >       +               strbuf_addf(sb, rerolled, v - 1);
> >       +       else
> >                       strbuf_addstr(sb, generic);
>
> In one of your review responses earlier, you hinted that limiting
> the range of v like this was needed for correctness.  There should
> be a new test to cover the case that this change makes a difference.

I will do it.

Thanks.