Re: git-format-patch for binary files / merges [Re: Expose subprojects as special files to "git diff" machinery]
- From
Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 18, 2007, 11:49 UTC
- Message-ID
- <81b0412b0704180449k34ac2606w82b8557d7d05945f@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <4625DAEE.3090702@vilain.net>
On 4/18/07, Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net> wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> Isn't this dangerous because it looks just like a normal diff with a > >> file being rewritten, when in truth it is a tree entry record being > >> rewritten. > >> > > Well, that's exactly what symlinks do too. > > > > You have to look at the mode to know what the rewriting *means*. > > > > But yeah, I wouldn't object at all to making it an "extended git header" > > instead (possibly just for subprojects, possibly for symlinks too) > > > > Speaking of 'custom' patch file formats, anyone put any thought to a > format for the commits which can't be represented with patch, like > binary files and merges? >
There is binary diff (look for --binary in Documentation/). And regarding merges: have you looked at git-bundle yet?