Re: [PATCH] format-patch: introduce format.outputDirectory configuration
From: Jeff King <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 23:05:23
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] format-patch: introduce format.outputDirectory configuration · Remi Galan Alfonso <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] format-patch: introduce format.outputDirectory configuration · Alexander Kuleshov <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] format-patch: introduce format.outputDirectory configuration · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] format-patch: introduce format.outputDirectory configuration · Alexander Kuleshov <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] format-patch: introduce format.outputDirectory configuration · Alexander Kuleshov <hidden>
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:46:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
If I were designing from scratch, I would consider making "-o -" output to stdout, and letting it override a previous "-o" (or vice versa). We could still do that (and make "--stdout" an alias for that), but I don't know if it is worth the trouble (it does change the behavior for anybody who wanted a directory called "-", but IMHO it is more likely to save somebody a headache than create one).I agree with "later -o should override an earlier one", but I do not necessarily agree with "'-o -' should be --stdout", for a simple reason that "-o foo" is not "--stdout >foo".
Good point. At any rate, that was all in my "designing from scratch" hypothetical, so it is doubly not worth considering.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Perhaps something like this to replace builtin/ part of Alexander's patch? [...]@@ -1337,6 +1342,9 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) die (_("--subject-prefix and -k are mutually exclusive.")); rev.preserve_subject = keep_subject; + if (!output_directory && !use_stdout) + output_directory = config_output_directory; +
Yeah, I think that is the sanest way to do it given the constraints. -Peff