On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:40:22PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>> > - there are a non-trivial number of patches for other projects (JGIT,
>> > EGIT, StGit, etc). This is somewhat unique to git, where we discuss
>> > a
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:55:50PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:46:06PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Josh Triplett
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:34:35PM -0700, Jeff King wrote:
> > >> As far as
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:40:22PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > - there are a non-trivial number of patches for other projects (JGIT,
> > EGIT, StGit, etc). This is somewhat unique to git, where we discuss
> > a lot of related projects on the list. But I wonder if other
> >
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:46:06PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:34:35PM -0700, Jeff King wrote:
>> >> As
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:46:06PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:34:35PM -0700, Jeff King wrote:
> >> As far as your patch goes, I'd be OK with defining:
> >>
> >> --rfc::
> >>
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:34:35PM -0700, Jeff King wrote:
>> As far as your patch goes, I'd be OK with defining:
>>
>> --rfc::
>> Pretend as if `--subject-prefix='RFC PATCH'` was given.
>>
Would:
Shorthand
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> - there are a non-trivial number of patches for other projects (JGIT,
> EGIT, StGit, etc). This is somewhat unique to git, where we discuss
> a lot of related projects on the list. But I wonder if other
> projects
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 04:34:35PM -0700, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:44:08PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:49:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > Andrew Donnellan writes:
> > >
> > > > Sounds good to me. Agreed
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:44:08PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:49:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Andrew Donnellan writes:
> >
> > > Sounds good to me. Agreed that "RFC" is essentially the only prefix
> > > other than "PATCH" that
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:49:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan writes:
>
> > Sounds good to me. Agreed that "RFC" is essentially the only prefix
> > other than "PATCH" that I see, at least in the kernel.
>
> Around here I think we saw WIP too,
Andrew Donnellan writes:
> Sounds good to me. Agreed that "RFC" is essentially the only prefix
> other than "PATCH" that I see, at least in the kernel.
Around here I think we saw WIP too, and that makes me lean towards
Peff's earlier suggestion to allow an end-user
On 17/09/16 17:21, Josh Triplett wrote:
This provides a shorter and more convenient alias for
--subject-prefix='RFC PATCH'.
Includes documentation in the format-patch manpage, and a new test
covering --rfc.
Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett
Sounds good to me. Agreed that
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:21:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> This provides a shorter and more convenient alias for
> --subject-prefix='RFC PATCH'.
>
> Includes documentation in the format-patch manpage, and a new test
> covering --rfc.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett
This provides a shorter and more convenient alias for
--subject-prefix='RFC PATCH'.
Includes documentation in the format-patch manpage, and a new test
covering --rfc.
Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett
---
v2:
- Add documentation to the format-patch manpage
- Call
14 matches
Mail list logo