From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:49:46 GMT
Subject: Re: git-format-patch for binary files / merges [Re: Expose subprojects as special files to "git diff" machinery]
Message-ID: <81b0412b0704180449k34ac2606w82b8557d7d05945f@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4625DAEE.3090702@vilain.net>

On 4/18/07, Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net> wrote:
> 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?