From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gitweb: Add GIT favicon, assuming image/png type Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 16:17:15 -0700 Message-ID: <7vejurkyro.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <200609041810.09838.jnareb@gmail.com> <200609041813.49103.jnareb@gmail.com> <200609042032.13742.jnareb@gmail.com> <7virk3l07a.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 05 01:18:27 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKNhn-00039V-SG for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 01:18:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965040AbWIDXRN (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:17:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965027AbWIDXRM (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:17:12 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao06.cox.net ([68.230.241.33]:40685 "EHLO fed1rmmtao06.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965029AbWIDXQv (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:16:51 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060904231651.DHAW6235.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:16:51 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id JPGk1V00d1kojtg0000000 Mon, 04 Sep 2006 19:16:45 -0400 To: Jakub Narebski In-Reply-To: (Jakub Narebski's message of "Tue, 05 Sep 2006 01:00:04 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jakub Narebski writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jakub Narebski writes: >> >>> Jakub Narebski wrote: >>> >>>> index 199fbe87384cd3f4686916277dd124cefc751e8a..f3b762de92e579300eba3f53ee26b2a80b4e76c7 100644 >>> >>> Hmmm... I do wonder why --binary implies --full-index option. >> >> Patch safety. Yours happened to be a creation patch so it might >> not matter in this particular case, but we would want to be >> reasonably sure there is no ambiguity in the preimage when you >> are doing a modification patch. > > Couldn't we do this (show full sha1) only for the binary part of patch? Personally I would say why bother, but patches welcome if cleanly done.