On Sun, 2016-04-24 at 19:30 +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 09:07:21AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Sun, 2016-04-24 at 17:10 +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 04:22:45AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2016-04-24 at 18:40 +0800, changbin...@intel.com wrote: > > > > > This patch add "-g, --git" option that tread FILE as git commits > > > > > expression. You can specify the git commit hash ID expressions, > > > > > then these commits from your git repository will be checked. > > > > Why would anyone want to use checkpatch on commits already in git? > > > It may be in some non-public development branch. Usually when I > > > write patches I open a file, change it and commit the result or even > > > interim result to have backups and other git features available as > > > soon as possible. All testing is done later. > > > > > > So IMHO this is a really useful feature. > > I think it would be a more useful feature for > > something like a git pull request rather than > > a local git repository. > There are basically two places, where one wants to check patches: > > 1. When one creates/modifies patches > 2. When one wants to apply patches in some tree
3. when one wants to accept patches from a pull request. > I'm perfectly happy with checkpatch's current behaviour for > the second task. OTOH during development I would find it useful > if I can do something like "checkpatch --git HEAD~3..HEAD". So you can rework the patches that are already applied? What would you do if it showed errors/defects? Encouraging rework seems inefficient.
