Re: [PATCH v7] format-patch: allow a non-integral version numbers

"ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:

    There is a small question: in the case of --reroll-count=<n>, "n" is an
    integer, we output "n-1" in the patch instead of "m" specified by
    --previous-count=<m>,Should we switch the priority of these two: let "m"
    output?

In principle, if the end-user can explicitly give an input that may
(or may not) contradict what the code would automatically compute,
we should treat the latter as a fallback default and use it only
when the former is not given.  So, I would think the answer is "yes,
we should use <m> and not <n>-1, if <m> is given".

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] 于2021年3月20日周六 上午12:01写道：

"ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

    There is a small question: in the case of --reroll-count=<n>, "n" is an
    integer, we output "n-1" in the patch instead of "m" specified by
    --previous-count=<m>,Should we switch the priority of these two: let "m"
    output?

In principle, if the end-user can explicitly give an input that may
(or may not) contradict what the code would automatically compute,
we should treat the latter as a fallback default and use it only
when the former is not given.  So, I would think the answer is "yes,
we should use <m> and not <n>-1, if <m> is given".

I have always felt that this issue needs attention before,
Although this `previous-count` may have nothing to do with the patch
of this version, thank you for answering this doubt for me.