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

[ZheNing Hu <adlternative@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 于2021年3月4日周四 上午8:54写道：
>
> Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > 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.