Anton Vorontsov [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
3 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 201 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kernel/dma.c
delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kernel/dma_64.c
Passing -M to git format-patch makes it much easier
I always thought that posting "-M" patches to the public lists is
discouraged since it is quite difficult to apply them via patch(1).
Also think of non-git users...
My understanding has been that it is encouraged on the kernel mailing
list, because the rename format is far easier to review by showing the
differences that matter to reviewers, than showing a big chunk of text
deleted and another big chunk of text that is similar added elsewhere.
I won't comment on this any further; the use of it is strictly a list and
community policy issue.
This is still possible by comparing the hashes:
...
That is, if hashes match then it was pure rename.
Though, too bad git {apply,am} does not produce any warnings if there
are any hidden changes...
But I _do_ want to know what you mean by this comment. Your statement
makes it sounds as if apply/am happily and silently accept "hidden
changes" and it is a bad thing.
Now what do you exactly mean by "any hidden changes"? Do you mean "the
sender did not use renaming format, the patch you fed was a one that
removes a huge chunk of text from one file, and adds a similarly huge
chunk of text to another file. The changes to these files looked similar
but was not quite the same"? It is all there for you to review, and
especially if you prefer non-renaming format, then that is what you get.
So I do not think that is what you are complaining about. It must be
something else --- what is it?
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 05:53:41PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Anton Vorontsov [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
quoted
3 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 201 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kernel/dma.c
delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kernel/dma_64.c
Passing -M to git format-patch makes it much easier
I always thought that posting "-M" patches to the public lists is
discouraged since it is quite difficult to apply them via patch(1).
Also think of non-git users...
My understanding has been that it is encouraged on the kernel mailing
list, because the rename format is far easier to review by showing the
differences that matter to reviewers, than showing a big chunk of text
deleted and another big chunk of text that is similar added elsewhere.
I won't comment on this any further; the use of it is strictly a list and
community policy issue.
quoted
This is still possible by comparing the hashes:
...
That is, if hashes match then it was pure rename.
Though, too bad git {apply,am} does not produce any warnings if there
are any hidden changes...
But I _do_ want to know what you mean by this comment. Your statement
makes it sounds as if apply/am happily and silently accept "hidden
changes" and it is a bad thing.
Now what do you exactly mean by "any hidden changes"? Do you mean "the
sender did not use renaming format, the patch you fed was a one that
removes a huge chunk of text from one file, and adds a similarly huge
chunk of text to another file. The changes to these files looked similar
but was not quite the same"? It is all there for you to review, and
especially if you prefer non-renaming format, then that is what you get.
As I said, "index .." lines that git puts into patches are useful to see
if there any changes has been made to a renamed file. So usually I don't
have to look through the whole patch to see if there are any changes,
I can just look into the patch and conclude: "this is git patch, and the
overhead information says that it is rename-only patch. It should
be safe."
Now consider the following patch (modified by hand: it should say
+foo, but I changed it to +bar).
diff --git a/file b/file
deleted file mode 100644
index 257cc56..0000000
--- a/file
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/file_renamed b/file_renamed
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..257cc56
--- /dev/null
+++ b/file_renamed
The "index ..." stuff says that there are no changes and it is
pure rename, but obviously there is a change.
What would be great is to have is some warning (or error), that
is: "git-am: patch claims that it would only rename the file %s,
but it also changes things in that file. Somebody tried to make
a fool of you."
Makes sense?
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2