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 860BD1F4B4 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 22:11:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729655AbgIHWK4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2020 18:10:56 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:65386 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728184AbgIHWKz (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2020 18:10:55 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892E8EF69A; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 18:10:53 -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=oa+byDiI+CgXX1E1rc2fdKkX5eY=; b=C2Y16W KwznwEHXuJRcH8q8dM/qUJx6KiBvYOdpgcmtXJp6N0fHFrJ14jgJbAYnJ/eXYC61 Fk3m6ktUnk4GFhQZilwpLY0Y3OMpZHQBgFp38xOlW8lW95sEzc7O3jtBNHOyqZ+j tK3kZ3TJBgq10r6jsXx5Ey6p30km3FSdf83hA= 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=qYS010heuYb1jG5XEimc+g+owTZmdrV0 zvGA7JPWpv/Ufj6F1AW9XPg0rmyWDTy+dbiKx6MxZo/Mvry1igZ8XyHuGROMPBdh kl60MUVQgMgAC9a4jorKbBsmJBl+gHACybNIjFetAQooymDVcnmCHg8aC6hho1Mu wU2oPzwVLtk= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 828C4EF698; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 18:10:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF353EF697; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 18:10:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Sunshine Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Duy Nguyen Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] format-patch: --interiff/--range-diff tweaks References: <20200908071610.16714-1-sunshine@sunshineco.com> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 15:10:49 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200908071610.16714-1-sunshine@sunshineco.com> (Eric Sunshine's message of "Tue, 8 Sep 2020 03:16:07 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 27C94F2A-F220-11EA-ABA2-843F439F7C89-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Eric Sunshine writes: > This series addresses a few comments[2,3,4,5] which cropped up during > review of the series which added --interdiff and --range-diff options to > git-format-patch[1]. That series made it into 'next' before I could address > the comments, so these patches (based upon 'master') make minor tweaks > "incrementally" (over 2 years late). The last step subtly changes the behaviour, if I am reading its description correctly. Does it deserve a documentation update, or are we just making the code behave "better" but still within the boundary of how it is documented to work, hence no need to update the doc (but deserves an advertisement in the release notes)? Thanks.