From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephan Beyer Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-am: ignore --binary option Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:27:12 +0200 Message-ID: <20080816022712.GD8837@leksak.fem-net> References: <1218238134-14231-1-git-send-email-s-beyer@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Aug 16 04:28:25 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KUBWi-0002h4-Od for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:28:25 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751589AbYHPC1R (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:27:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751345AbYHPC1R (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:27:17 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:38395 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751307AbYHPC1R (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:27:17 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2008 02:27:15 -0000 Received: from q137.fem.tu-ilmenau.de (EHLO leksak.fem-net) [141.24.46.137] by mail.gmx.net (mp062) with SMTP; 16 Aug 2008 04:27:15 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1499303 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19ZwEVB/hRZaCF7GCOSbcUAjGEQzBeu8+UW9Fc6Rl LfDErr0sr50e9N Received: from sbeyer by leksak.fem-net with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KUBVY-0002VV-12; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:27:12 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1218238134-14231-1-git-send-email-s-beyer@gmx.net> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.79 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, Stephan Beyer wrote: > The git-apply documentation says that --binary is a historical option. > This patch lets git-am ignore --binary and removes advertisements of this > option. I thought 1.6.0 would be the right release to not advertise the --binary option any longer, but it seems that this is wrong. Is there some reason that this patch is going into a wrong direction? Or was it just overlooked? Kind regards, Stephan -- Stephan Beyer , PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F