From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755571Ab1KIRUE (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:20:04 -0500 Received: from oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.38.55]:43287 "HELO oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751285Ab1KIRUC (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:20:02 -0500 Message-ID: <4EBAB5F7.80000@xenotime.net> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:18:47 -0800 From: Randy Dunlap Organization: YPO4 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110323 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 3.2-rc1 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1807:box742.bluehost.com:xenotime:xenotime.net} {sentby:smtp auth 50.53.38.135 authed with rdunlap@xenotime.net} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/07/2011 06:10 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Which brings me to a question I already asked on G+ - do people really > need the old-fashioned patches? The -rc1 patch is about 22MB gzip-9'd, > and part of the reason is that all those renames cause big > delete/create diffs. We *could* use git rename patches, but then you'd > have to apply them with "git apply" rather than the legacy "patch" > executables. But as it is, the patch is almost a third of the size of > the tar-ball, which makes me wonder if there's even any point to such > a big patch? [email was too long/noisy, sorry for the delayed reply.] [should I admit that I don't follow you on g+ ?] Do you mean files like patch-3.2-rc1.gz or .bz2 or .xz? Yes, I use them, but if I am the only user of them, I'll get over it. -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***