From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (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 6873112CD98 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 17:32:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717522378; cv=none; b=V/aDSdG0e5Q6b6UdDlhpzBcn3ucBefHYjFv9bJX+TEjuCoptDVF+wupVNoqRRXa6Ri3LJdo3mZ2rlsrGHES5Vf0K7Vxa17UA756C+u4VFfNbpKVuCZBx28TlQNBrAxkLdQxUgpcAdBJ9UGW6kPP8wUYC3aapx0IpdJvROnBY2m8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717522378; c=relaxed/simple; bh=U6UAPPHhL/f0+emtiQ9P6pibscElHt6IczRiV2Nw9FA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=WRBG46rOrsJ9DoMUt+G5J4oQyqhSpNIgpw0QHQtJeB3ketH0jCsF36yihE1ZslKdA7UVYBsxboQ5y7r4kibt5zzytAFA8DZXB+i4cnacLCix1i/4+74wS1nUYx+HaTqps/MN+rRlujJY37X2XiRdq+NofIRYeidph7unTHhyOmg= 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=wYFIGrD/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 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="wYFIGrD/" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90AF332497; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:32:50 -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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=U6UAPPHhL/f0 +emtiQ9P6pibscElHt6IczRiV2Nw9FA=; b=wYFIGrD/dgvG9pHNm5YAtLxpCqg8 SnXEwnCE9bjGuSr2MVf+VTXFWYOg21rAWyHbSKBxyhrFqGcoixeIpIybs4Cbsg/N kQVf+hZo3FMvJxzOQT1XhCCRbPR2NSqgVUW8P0ZRh0QlsczsJDoGKxbUwuJjVFgS nrndCgJZDfvUCjw= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893A932496; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:32:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.173.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A988232495; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:32:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Rub=C3=A9n?= Justo , Git List Subject: Re: [PATCH] format-patch: assume --cover-letter for diff in multi-patch series In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:02:05 +0200") References: <6269eed5-f1ff-43f3-9249-d6a0f1852a6c@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 10:32:46 -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 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 75B71BDE-2298-11EF-B5B5-ACC938F0AE34-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Patrick Steinhardt writes: > On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 12:49:35AM +0200, Rub=C3=A9n Justo wrote: >> If either `--interdiff` or `--range-diff` is specified without >> `--cover-letter`, we'll abort if it would result in a multi-patch seri= es >> being generated. Because the cover-letter is needed to give the diff >> text in a multi-patch series. >>=20 >> Considering that `format-patch` generates a multi-patch as needed, let= 's >> adopt a similar "cover as necessary" approach when using `--interdiff` >> or `--range-diff`. > > What does git-format-patch(1) do right now in this situation? > > In any case, this change should probably have a test or two to > demonstrate that it works as advertised. Yes. I think the existing tests for giving --interdiff to a single patch series serves as the "it does not trigger when it shouldn't" side of the test, so a positive "it does what it claims to do" test should be sufficient. Thanks.