From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5537A1F9FD for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 01:27:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231210AbhBWBZ5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2021 20:25:57 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:59447 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231255AbhBWBZD (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2021 20:25:03 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53355B6889; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 20:24:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=HhFP9mrfH/YQoQMX7uKSfM4F7D4=; b=wRN/At acwPfy4fKHEWp2yCMwOoZtskYJKDRByOuceklJDAv4N8HLiUQcGSPwZjOWMXOvca g+OfLNCCvpMo00FwD3kV07G3QApO5AaUNbUq2PvDyFBsau5tliqSDitddpuVShTc L29f58xTF3+tRV0ie8U6F0L20ADpmriXCCrVo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=esuQhZN5+HIi/MoEGLwgDHeL0gBNTzNX wMfkXYl/oaNdDQ0XvlTHj/P4l+aUz9Mw/3jKM1w/9ec7fAnERe19sGFVUeyT7Lb2 6K+oQLSV/vXkVy8CoKKXWFvJBnT89GDuHy6WI0GaGBQgRVdSL8MpudeXXVWDE2o7 XYHHDlVKVJA= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4663EB6888; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 20:24:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA00DB6887; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 20:24:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Wang Yugui , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs/format-patch: mention handling of merges References: <20210222211621.0C5D.409509F4@e16-tech.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:24:16 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 22 Feb 2021 18:40:25 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D8FF2EF8-7575-11EB-996C-74DE23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > That seems worse to me, because "it is impossible" implies that this > can never be changed. But I don't think that's true. We might one day > output something useful for merges. Fair enough. You are more optimistic than I am ;-) > I think one could argue that any merge information (including conflict > resolution) works against the root notion of format-patch, which is a > set of changes that can be applied on a range of basesa. That's true and it was the primary motive for omiting merges. > But even that I > would be hesitant to commit to (since --base exists now). I am not quite sure what --base has to throw into the equation. The information --base gives is often useful when I want to learn where the patches were taken from, but that does not restrict where the patches are actually applied to in any meaningful way (iow, "on a range of bases" part is not affected).