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 F03CF1F9FC for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:02:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230177AbhCSQCT (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Mar 2021 12:02:19 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:60243 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230305AbhCSQBz (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Mar 2021 12:01:55 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB5EB5AAE; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 12:01:54 -0400 (EDT) (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=mBcvdlTojvjb9VHPOTlntAuZvrQ=; b=IYslGg tEEIwHFxJnS0z68afczm2ri/1VJ3p2P4SdwQvMogvOFlKEjaKlLqXHG1zm1Jbs2T FBzD2uCsh85jIY30pSVR/vqEbDQgogTcB+8jGOPfTcXVbZNPp3W+EjgkDHPTw75X uGo28MMKKamU8OJfx/eIkiL65+wI50UhLjG4w= 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=iwmq7DSdHNTb039dR8npMCZ0gUXtk5Y4 mE177LjFm2lAl5XXiqm3DNRs/l9KOwslattU8kKshYkB26C9qoDDPC5cz+sLlGfg zkOZGF4fZFXGqZ4+AV0Zv42s4Hyv63aOqS28sey4alMKT7MHSsOnTwQaIiAG+YJx CsS1m1IQbas= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E29B5AAD; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 12:01:54 -0400 (EDT) (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 7438CB5AAB; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 12:01:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Denton Liu , Eric Sunshine , =?utf-8?B?xJBvw6BuIFRy4bqnbiBDw7RuZw==?= Danh , ZheNing Hu Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] format-patch: allow a non-integral version numbers References: Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 09:01:53 -0700 In-Reply-To: (ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget's message of "Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:21:23 +0000") 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: 6CCC3A86-88CC-11EB-ABAC-74DE23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget" writes: > There is a small question: in the case of --reroll-count=, "n" is an > integer, we output "n-1" in the patch instead of "m" specified by > --previous-count=,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 and not -1, if is given".