From: Petr Baudis Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:52:44 GMT Subject: Re: I'm missing isofs.h Message-ID: <20050428075244.GE8612@pasky.ji.cz> In-Reply-To: <7vhdhra2sg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Dear diary, on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 07:27:59AM CEST, I got a letter where Junio C Hamano told me that... > PB> Actually, I can't; the patch generator is not on par with mine yet. > PB> It does not show modes and does not indicate file adds/removals by > PB> /dev/null - basically, I need something cg-patch can eat (and it should > PB> be backwards compatible). I think throwing the sha1 hashes away will not > PB> harm; I got used to the Index: field and === marker, but I don't care if > PB> I loose it. > > I've looked at what cg-Xdiffdo does. From the above paragraph, > I sense that it does more than what cg-patch requires, so I took > a look at cg-patch, too. Yes; that was what the last sentence was about. ;-) > Can you help me verify if I understand the requirements cg-patch > has on its input correctly? > > - Follow the convention of showing newly added files with > "--- /dev/null" and removed files with "+++ /dev/null"; Yes. > - Label matches this Perl regexp: > > m|^(---|\+\+\+)\s+[^/]+\/(\S+)\s+.*mode:([0-7]{3,}).*/| > > and you only care about sign ($1), filename ($2) and mode ($3). Yes.. > (modified files) > --- a/fs/ext3/Makefile (mode:0644) > +++ b/fs/ext3/Makefile (mode:0664) > > (deleted files) > --- a/fs/ext3/Makefile (mode:0644) > +++ /dev/null > > (added files) > --- /dev/null > +++ b/fs/ext3/Makefile (mode:0644) > > Is my understanding correct? If so it should not be too much > work to generate something like it from within the builtin > stuff. Yes, perfectly. > Provided if that is what the kernel folks can live with (I do > see why the tool wants the mode bits, but it is unusual to see > non-timestamp strings after filenames). There's no reason not to get the timestamps too if you can; just put them after the attributes. They aren't in the diff now either. I need the mode bits to set the mode right, surprisingly. :-) Yes, in part it is a leftover from the old times when we didn't just track the execute bit; I don't know if it is worth changing this. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor