[email protected] writes: >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >>Please. No format=flawed. Really. > I'll figure out the line-wrapping. > >> Also this step is not about --no-relative and diff.relative but is >> only about --no-relative option. > Should I submit as two independent patches then? I took the approach > of splitting them out into 1/2 vs 2/2 to distinguish, but it sounds > like that isn't optimal.
They are indeed better to be 1/2 and 2/2; they do not have to share the same subject, though. 1/2 now adds only --no-relative and makes sure an earlier --relative is cancelled without even knowing that diff.relative might appear in the future (well, you may know that, but the system with only 1/2 applied without 2/2 would work perfectly fine). 2/2 adds diff.relative and makes sure --no-relative cancels its effect as well. > On review, this may be a bad approach though. Non-locality makes it > harder to follow/understand and introduces a subtle bug. > current: "git-diff --relative=path --no-relative --relative" == > "git-diff --relative=path" > expected: "git-diff --relative=path --no-relative --relative" == > "git-diff --relative" Exactly. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
