From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DE2A624 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 18:22:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717611732; cv=none; b=PC3nqY6EQf9CDoS0ogaCi5+UZLNfsrhoL/+Ys8+Gg6VATDpcEnrvn6iXP3Cxd/4gV58qjI6KcTA3rA0OSUvs6tZeLVKos1glWaUvL4q+ap3o8/79B+ev0alZDS+32KYY5IQ0iG5CkQBpQm4jDduVhevA0ssCVjFU/E1pDYUGSo0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717611732; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CqvJ8xQd1kAs14hOo+GW6m4f403lrJYQff/7+pQ+K6E=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=OpiiVpttJ/OTBlBPg/WuXantDUXxwbHEcPV+/oWgEn1W9c616gGe/oYUCMfT4eW0c9SvAldFY5SQWETS4wmuw3uaWHgw+DOvX4QLHMbvJjZqtcFIxalOageaDz05k8wZ0cUDfRuEnVt9130Fv68DLkKlWeMFSriYU8EfDa43g+w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=rh3EF7mS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="rh3EF7mS" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB821ED78; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 14:22:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=CqvJ8xQd1kAs14hOo+GW6m4f403lrJYQff/7+p Q+K6E=; b=rh3EF7mSD0PHOhiOFlZMxwZ3lWkOHH/0XPGbWDmfC8e2SlJ6aOHMjZ aoDz181CsIt+EGiwC30yje6wHgbXv2HABybElrskjGKk6o2Bo65iC3LC4Hpww38Y badVaROnv7jpN715gP4IYtUF90nB3Z3COL1oSaMHPKRogU+Xg+DBM= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030F41ED77; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 14:22:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.204.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 656E81ED76; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 14:22:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: indicating diff strategy in format-patch message headers In-Reply-To: <20240605-hilarious-dramatic-mushroom-7fd941@lemur> (Konstantin Ryabitsev's message of "Wed, 5 Jun 2024 14:01:38 -0400") References: <20240605-hilarious-dramatic-mushroom-7fd941@lemur> Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 11:22:08 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8573F0BC-2368-11EF-8047-6488940A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Konstantin Ryabitsev writes: > Would it make sense to have git-format-patch (and friends) include an > additional header hinting at the options used to generate the patch? E.g.: > > X-git-diff-options: algo=myers; context=3; I doubt it. And newer version of Git _will_ try to improve how patch text appears to be more useful to human users, so you have more moving parts than you'd want to even think about enumerating. If you were to add a new e-mail header, wouldn't it make more sense to add a patch-id header and agree on the set of options to be used to generate that patch-id (which might be different from the setting used to format the real patch for human and "git am" consumption)?