Re: [PATCH 0/2] log/ format-patch improvements
From: Jonathan Nieder <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:49:23
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
quoted
The second patch clarifies the meaning of the `-<n>` option. We should also probably force the mutual exclusivity of `-<n>` and <revision range> to avoid confusion.
[...]
Do you see value in this patch or is it just unnecessary baggage?
I see value in avoiding confusion. Maybe one solution would be to make
format-patch use --no-merges by default.
$ git log --oneline --no-merges -3 ab/test..origin/pu
70256a3 shell: Rewrite documentation and improve error message
9c46c05 rev-parse: tests git rev-parse --verify master@{n}, for various n
eedce78 sha1_name.c: use warning in preference to fprintf(stderr