Re: [PATCH 0/5 v2] Introduce the .gitfile
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Feb 18, 2008, 13:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.LSU.1.00.0802181330030.30505@racer.site>
- In-Reply-To
- <8c5c35580802180456s75c9f857of1f727aca4673374@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Lars Hjemli wrote:
Show 22 quoted lines
> On Feb 18, 2008 1:17 PM, Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Lars Hjemli wrote: > > > > > The patch-series has been reordered and updated according to > > > comments on the earlier series. > > > > It would be easier on a stupid reviewer like me, if you summarised > > what you changed. > > Ok, I'll keep that in mind next time, and here's a quick summary (from > the top of my head) of this series vs. the previous: > * patch 1 and 2 are swapped, since the changes to git-sh-setup.sh can > be applied onto master regardless of the rest of the patch series > (while the other patches still rely on 1/5). > * git-sh-setup.sh is simplified even further, and relies on > git-rev-parse to produce the error message when no gitdir can be > found. > * read_gitfile_gently() is moved from environment.c into setup.c since > it now invokes is_git_directory(). > * read_gitfile_gently() will gently ignore a 'missing' .git or a .git > which isn't a regular file, but die()s on all other errors.
Thanks.
> > In the case of patch "1/5 => 2/5", I would even have appreciated an > > interdiff... > > Sorry, but I don't think I understand what you mean by interdiff.
The tool interdiff of patchutils is really nice: you can visualise what would be the diff between the state after applying the first patch, and the state after applying the second patch, without applying anything at all:
$ interdiff <patch1> <patch2>
Ciao, Dscho