Hello Jeff and Junio, Thank you for feedback and help. I think also I need to add yet another test which tests case when configuration option is set and -o passed.
I'll make changes and resend the patch. Thank you. 2015-06-19 10:14 GMT+06:00 Jeff King <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:46:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > If I were designing from scratch, I would consider making "-o -" output >> > to stdout, and letting it override a previous "-o" (or vice versa). We >> > could still do that (and make "--stdout" an alias for that), but I don't >> > know if it is worth the trouble (it does change the behavior for anybody >> > who wanted a directory called "-", but IMHO it is more likely to save >> > somebody a headache than create one). >> >> I agree with "later -o should override an earlier one", but I do not >> necessarily agree with "'-o -' should be --stdout", for a simple >> reason that "-o foo" is not "--stdout >foo". > > Good point. At any rate, that was all in my "designing from scratch" > hypothetical, so it is doubly not worth considering. > >> Perhaps something like this to replace builtin/ part of Alexander's >> patch? >> [...] >> @@ -1337,6 +1342,9 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, >> const char *prefix) >> die (_("--subject-prefix and -k are mutually exclusive.")); >> rev.preserve_subject = keep_subject; >> >> + if (!output_directory && !use_stdout) >> + output_directory = config_output_directory; >> + > > Yeah, I think that is the sanest way to do it given the constraints. > > -Peff > -- 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
