Re: [PATCH v2] format-patch: allow a non-integral version numbers

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] 于2021年3月4日周四 上午8:54写道：

Denton Liu [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Hmm, others may disagree but I don't really like the idea of
`--previous-count`. It may be useful for populating "Range-diff vs <n>"
instead of just "Range-diff" but I don't think it's worth the cost of
maintaining this option.

It really depends on the target audience.  As a reviewer who may be
too busy to read every iteration of a series, I would probably find
it useless if it gives just "range-diff" or "range-diff with last"
without saying which exact round.  Obviously, if you are not doing
range-diff, it will not be an issue.  If the patch requires (I
didn't read the latest one) the previous-count to be given when
range-diff or interdiff is not requested, it should probably be
fixed.

I am also OK with any design decision, as long as it will not close
the door for the occasionally requested feature to carry over cover
letter material from the previous round to the current one.

Thanks.

What we are arguing now is whether it is necessary to add
"aginst v<previous_count>" to the patch when the non-integer version
number + rangediff/interdiff is required. Denton's point of view may be
similar to that of Eric before.

Here are my personal thoughts:

  Personally, I may use GGG more. When I see a title like "Range-diff vs v1:",
 I can know that this is a change from the previous v1, and it may be better
 than "Range-diff again v1" To be more specific, but if it is a small patch such
 as "v1.2", we use previous_count to tell the reviewer that this is a
range-diff
change from "v1.1" or other versions.

Of course this `previous count` can be used in a very small range, but
I think it
 doesn't hurt to keep it, because even if you don't use it, `format
patch` will still
output "Range-diff", which will not break any known functions. It can
only be said
that `previous count` provides an option for submitters to know the
previous version
 for reviewers. In this regard, I agree with Junio's point of view.

Thanks.