From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8BDC4741F for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 02:38:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6FCE20665 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 02:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="rEM9mT5C" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729706AbgKJCiB (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2020 21:38:01 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:55223 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729648AbgKJCiA (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2020 21:38:00 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC745100A33; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 21:37:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=tMWpM3ZSPz3rvrqAKn6FKVFzyQg=; b=rEM9mT 5CITYumE/L69xlp8t3WsDKcH+m+Vk9kLLsMXZEXkCCNVg46pXvMIFEHGLrykJBt3 VRqWNVzPL/L1QFgc1c2Dq5x1HP6BTJgjruaLp74yDc2/bmkfYf/7oJ3/sU3IAHhH qulTKzOryhun1dE3Z3U9WZ2zFOnrIbUlL9Kis= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=YXz21oJnKBs/q5wCvzA7Zdp7mmq7882s HER35pBEAjhRIvKvRYuR6GIAPaLe6wjAVW/zh71zGbL9JYaRApmdKQ64HXDjelGy lhXTDZ8NLqE5lGJK+nQ84YlxizXFGZ2wNE0WskZEW4g4qp+grpWdGr/nNQdbVOCZ c1iaPtc5d/g= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5141100A32; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 21:37:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B538100A31; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 21:37:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: hukeping Cc: Git List , Eric Sunshine , "Zhengjunling (JRing, Task Force)" , zhuangbiaowei , Patrick Hemmer , Rafael Ascensao , =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe , Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] format-patch: make output filename configurable References: <20201105201548.2333425-1-hukeping@huawei.com> <20201105150149.GA107127@coredump.intra.peff.net> <9d4b387655024b24a20ce2384740b03a@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 18:37:54 -0800 In-Reply-To: <9d4b387655024b24a20ce2384740b03a@huawei.com> (hukeping@huawei.com's message of "Tue, 10 Nov 2020 02:31:38 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: BD3E192E-22FD-11EB-ACEB-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org hukeping writes: > It would be very hard to remove a config knob rather than add a > new one and we already have too many. > > Does it worth to add a new configuration variable for this or just > a hard-coded value is enough? I personally would say "yes, the current code that limits to 64 is enough", but you, as the person who said that you do not like the current hard-coded value, are not in the position to ask that question, I would have to say---if it were enough for you, you wouldn't have complained about 64 in the first place ;-)