From: Junio C Hamano Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 06:48:57 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-daemon server Message-ID: <7vzmu5b8o6.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> In-Reply-To: >>>>> "DB" == Daniel Barkalow writes: DB> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> BTW, don't we want to have them renamed to git-ssh-pull (and >> git-ssh-push) for consistency with other transports, before 1.0 >> happens? DB> I think that would be good, but I'm still using a really old version of DB> git for my development, so I don't have your diff rename support; could DB> you send a patch to do it? I am sorry, but you lost me. I am afraid that I do not understand what you are asking me to send you: a patch to do what? Tell your old git how to do -M/-C? That would be "the tip of Linus repository"... Ah (lightbulb!), are you asking me to send the patch in the git-extended rename diff format, like this? $ git-diff-cache -p -B -C HEAD diff --git a/Documentation/git-rpull.txt b/Documentation/git-ssh-pull.txt similarity index 89% rename old Documentation/git-rpull.txt rename new Documentation/git-ssh-pull.txt --- a/Documentation/git-rpull.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-ssh-pull.txt @@ -1,20 +1,20 @@ -git-rpull(1) -============ +git-ssh-pull(1) +=============== v0.1, May 2005 ... I am not sure if this is suitable for patch submission. I did the rename/copy stuff mostly for software archaeology purposes (meaning, you examine what is in your repository), not to generate patches for submission via e-mail. It certainly is a good test for the git-apply stuff Linus has been working on, and in addition it would have a good amusement value to see how well it would work (or how badly it would barf ;-), but I suspect Linus (or, rather, his "dotest" script) would appreciate it more if it came in the traditional diff format that does not use the rename stuff. I dunno. Let's ask Linus first. Linus, can your workflow grok things like this, or do you prefer patch submission to use traditional diff format without renames?