From: Daniel Barkalow Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 16:03:41 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-daemon server Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vzmu5b8o6.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. > 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*