On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 10:21:06PM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 03/06/2013 09:00 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > While at it also document minimal git version needed for --no-signature. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]> > > --- > > scripts/git-ptx-patches | 7 +++++++ > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/scripts/git-ptx-patches b/scripts/git-ptx-patches > > index 37f5d91..fadb2c1 100755 > > --- a/scripts/git-ptx-patches > > +++ b/scripts/git-ptx-patches > > @@ -110,10 +110,17 @@ case "$remove_old" in > > ;; > > esac > > > > +# git-format-patch --notes is supported since git 1.7.2 > > ? That's the "While at it" part mentioned in the commit log. I consider it helpful when judging if it's time to remove that check. E.g. 1.7.2 means it's in Debian squeeze. So I'd say it's safe to remove it soon.
> > if git format-patch -h 2>&1 | grep -q signature; then > > GIT_EXTRA_ARGS="--no-signature" > > fi > > > > +# git-format-patch --notes is supported since git 1.7.6, but actually you > > want > > +# git 1.8.1-rc0 to get the notes below the --- marker > > +if man git-format-patch | grep -q -e --notes; then > > Why don't we use the same mechanism (either man or -h) to figure out if > git supports the extra agrument? git-format-patch -h doesn't mention --notes in 1.8.1-rc0 so I used man. I didn't consider this to be enough to change the working way to determine if --no-signature is supported. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- ptxdist mailing list [email protected]
