From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.150]) (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 520CA1D90C8 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2025 17:35:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.150 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758648942; cv=none; b=stMk4bs0iEd1TKWelhmLSxOZVBfK68rx0OGnLUTeda2PXpkkdK5AK32lkEf50vMjNxZP+K59932h4OzWX52oduqbLNPUSYmF/QKDTjLYhDnTF6KZdbX8iPs04IAb+3k+tsKiiYHIETgJJXGTEPfz4oEHw5Rs+iQhI2n6dBsPDbo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758648942; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HBRCzdfx/vLoWKTcUqm7ELJdx5CZ2oDcLbWSplRrDtk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=e3zA+mrACCrn90gjNyXAgFz8W+2ClLOU5UH22rg3qExo1C8y5yP8WbYlURgCjPh/el4BY7r5A1YyW0Yq1EvfxHmTmBGlAngeiP5wa+053LHMWLBoGyJY8lswSoLNQn0kh10TggKDFy9abT/+iEEhVpL9WRQolq5xiHVwp+9TGQc= 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=1kKQvaHW; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=epO51yyq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.150 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="1kKQvaHW"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="epO51yyq" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9671D00340; Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:35:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:35:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1758648939; x=1758735339; bh=mzIbo2d3dqb9gjw4Si/nC0vHZ3IiJaWBVtz4W6i9X54=; b= 1kKQvaHWB+4hC6pyR8kCY/5i1u3/eWo37kUtl/MFQAPbMmn1gAYapbotNKhPWkng GuY1ioHq5ssTUWZ4AGipv1/NNgJKLbbgXA0AEsIVAa/gGyzGF0h+7A+SzU3iwdyu rfzlHRG0ZzrZU2ubkAcLY/NgppIVNHHqaHs3kMwlc+OjISVgqHmoi3ULk3IbAoF3 rGqKCar0+Yb8RJiTnKFcVf5AUbqaFFGhIwvTfJfBU2M6IhuGLRArC6+bhPTf09zG XeRyDNeXVVNW7QK6EjtqUwnhzPl4SXTAVjJwbCbJicCg/bividNOQyKf/X/kXFQS SECQhZ5j1tmJMYeAkIJHaw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1758648939; x= 1758735339; bh=mzIbo2d3dqb9gjw4Si/nC0vHZ3IiJaWBVtz4W6i9X54=; b=e pO51yyqmKdvj8s1hfaSZ7i/xyEtTnZZrJyCRzNPspvViAOfNbUks245qLMxNxR5/ 5dqV5GY6ZTWfjQQl4UvFOvesvUxBJDq7bnZGVhnadRaObrl6hylIUbj6YPKsyHlJ Y0/huO01Cy3By32juoGvDcvMt4rqmlQ3NVGkXe7pbM8r4GCb7MRQfGG/7zGFlO3O HJaZ61vagUFYjFqNh+DvaPClpAiZoqjdytiR0OsiqL/THDqNuE3z7w9Jo13SGIkD zGXlMhvs8v+DJ1MIr/UV9H7THjrlaB8MM0R8gERNDLWYAZeWgyXtYNJiklMuAJOS pbkNEKUFRCgsd2HIi8rgg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggdeiudefgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtgfesthekredttderjeenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnheptdffvdetgedvtdekteefveeuveelgfekfeehiefgheevhedvkeehleevveef tdehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepfedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepkhhrihhsthhofhhfvghrhhgruhhgshgsrghkkhesfh grshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdr ohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:35:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] revision: add rdiff_other_arg to rev_info In-Reply-To: (Kristoffer Haugsbakk's message of "Tue, 23 Sep 2025 17:53:54 +0200") References: Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2025 10:35:37 -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; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" writes: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2025, at 23:58, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com writes: >> >>> git-format-patch(1) is supposed to treat Git notes the same between >>> notes output beneath the commit message and the notes output for the >>> range-diff. >> >> Is this an opinion, or are there things that existing pieces of code >> already do to achieve such a behaviour already? > > What I mean is that > > Notes (...) > > Beneath the commit message and > > ### Notes (...) ### > > In the range-diff should be from the same namespaces. It shouldn’t be, > for example: > > Notes (presentation): > > Beneath the commit message while the range-diff has: > > ### Notes (testing) ### > ... > ### Notes (scratchpad) ### > > That’s the point of passing `--notes` to range-diff. OK. So it is more like "range-diff is supposed to show comparison of pairs of patches; if format-patch shows one set of notes after three-dash lines in its output, range-diff invoked by format-patch to compare its patches with another set of patches should also be comparing patches generated with the same set of notes". That makes sense to me. > Thanks for the explanation. I’ve added `.rdiff_other_arg = STRVEC_INIT > \` to `REV_INFO_INIT`. Yup, I think I already have a fix-up patch mixed in your series in the integration result I pushed out last night. > Could it be as simple as `log_arg` or `log_args`? Yeah, that is much better than "other" (where it is unclear what are the "primary" things that "others" are in contrast). Thanks.