Alexander Kuleshov <[email protected]> writes: > 2015-06-19 3:46 GMT+06:00 Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>: >> 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". >> >> 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; >> + >> > > But there is following condition above: > > if (!use_stdout) > output_directory = set_outdir(prefix, output_directory); > > After which output_directory will be "./" everytime and > >> >> + if (!output_directory && !use_stdout) >> + output_directory = config_output_directory; >> + >> > > will not work here.
I thought I made that "if we did not see '-o dir' on the command line, initialize output_directory to what we read from the config" before we make a call to set_outdir(). What I am missing? Puzzled... FWIW, IIRC, the patch you are responding to passed the test you added. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
