From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Gruenbacher Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 21:46:11 +0000 Subject: Re: [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] ar Message-Id: <201009042346.11787.agruen@suse.de> List-Id: References: <1283431716-21540-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <201009042333.51419.agruen@suse.de> <20100904214527.GA20444@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20100904214527.GA20444@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: bug-patch@gnu.org, Uwe =?iso-8859-1?q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Magnus Damm , Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Saturday 04 September 2010 23:45:27 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > It also makes them incompatible with GNU patch, whether or not GNU patch > understands the GIT headers. Aha? Then why do you think GNU patch tries to understand the GIt patch headers? So that it can be incompatible with GIT? Andreas From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: agruen@suse.de (Andreas Gruenbacher) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 23:46:11 +0200 Subject: [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c) In-Reply-To: <20100904214527.GA20444@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1283431716-21540-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <201009042333.51419.agruen@suse.de> <20100904214527.GA20444@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <201009042346.11787.agruen@suse.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Saturday 04 September 2010 23:45:27 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > It also makes them incompatible with GNU patch, whether or not GNU patch > understands the GIT headers. Aha? Then why do you think GNU patch tries to understand the GIt patch headers? So that it can be incompatible with GIT? Andreas From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Gruenbacher Subject: Re: [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 23:46:11 +0200 Organization: SUSE Labs Message-ID: <201009042346.11787.agruen@suse.de> References: <1283431716-21540-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <201009042333.51419.agruen@suse.de> <20100904214527.GA20444@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bug-patch@gnu.org, "Uwe =?iso-8859-1?q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=" , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Magnus Damm , Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org, "Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org To: "Russell King - ARM Linux" X-From: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Sep 04 23:52:21 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: glps-linuxsh-dev@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Os0er-0005E2-BP for glps-linuxsh-dev@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:52:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753708Ab0IDVwC (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:02 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:48529 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753670Ab0IDVwC (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:02 -0400 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D608B94393; Sat, 4 Sep 2010 23:52:00 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.31.12-0.2-desktop; KDE/4.3.5; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20100904214527.GA20444@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Saturday 04 September 2010 23:45:27 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > It also makes them incompatible with GNU patch, whether or not GNU patch > understands the GIT headers. Aha? Then why do you think GNU patch tries to understand the GIt patch headers? So that it can be incompatible with GIT? Andreas