From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Karl =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hasselstr=F6m?= Subject: Re: [StGIT PATCH] Implement a new patch identification scheme and id command Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:08:57 +0200 Message-ID: <20080616140857.GA24433@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> References: <20080614072833.7899.91460.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20080614094714.GC14282@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Catalin Marinas X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 16 16:10:31 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K8FPL-0001Jw-TA for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:10:08 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753749AbYFPOJM convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:09:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753715AbYFPOJL (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:09:11 -0400 Received: from diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk ([80.68.90.142]:4612 "EHLO diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753589AbYFPOJK (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:09:10 -0400 Received: from kha by diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1K8FOD-0006O9-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:08:57 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Manual-Spam-Check: kha@treskal.com, clean User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 2008-06-16 14:30:32 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > What about supporting patch ranges with the new id format, something > like: > > branch:patch1..patch2,patch3 > > or > > branch:patch1..patch2 branch:patch3 Yes, that's a good idea; the endpoints of a range have to be on the same branch no matter what, so having the branch: prefix apply to both of the endpoint patches in "branch:patch1..patch2" is a good idea. I'm not sure if the comma notation is worth it. And if it turns out to have been useful, we can just advise users to write $ stg foo branch:{p1..p2,p3} which the shell will expand to $ stg foo branch:p1..p2 branch:p3 > This way we could get rid of many --branch options. Indeed. --=20 Karl Hasselstr=F6m, kha@treskal.com www.treskal.com/kalle