Re: [PATCH] git-daemon server

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Jun 5, 2005, 16:03 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0506051150440.30848-100000@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vzmu5b8o6.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> 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
>     ...

Right. I hadn't actually been following the discussion entirely, but it certainly seems like one major benefit of the rename/copy stuff is that it will generate more readable diffs. That is, I can see what you changed in the process of renaming the file, and don't have to inspect all the lines you didn't change to see that they're the same.

> 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.

I think that examination by mailing list subscribers is a very similar situation, and it makes sense to apply exactly the patch that has been checked.

Show 7 quoted lines

> 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.

I think I like best what you actually did: send it both ways. Having a test case that's a real change someone wants to make as well as a reference for how it should come out helps a lot in debugging. And I can tell that the rename-using version is what I wanted, and the non-rename-using version is also must be good if the results match.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*