From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Do not show "diff --git" metainfo with --no-prefix Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:22:53 -0800 Message-ID: <7vhchdsn0y.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vhched3kw.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v4pded1rk.fsf_-_@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v7iiabjyh.fsf_-_@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Daniel Barkalow , Chris Ortman , Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 16 18:23:36 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 1JFBzE-0008MW-Av for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:23:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750958AbYAPRXH (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:23:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750911AbYAPRXG (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:23:06 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:55720 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750902AbYAPRXD (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:23:03 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DAEC4440; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:23:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD154441D; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:22:55 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:26:06 -0800 (PST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds writes: > So I do not think it's true that "--no-prefix" (or --src/dst-prefix) > necessarily implies "no-git" at all. It *can* do so, but it's not a given > thing, and almost certainly isn't in the long run with submodule support. > > So it would be kind of sad if we mixed it up with the prefix decision, > when it really is something totally separate. Many other SCM's may want a > simple "-p1" patch (BK did, for example), and that doesn't make them > particularly "git-like". And conversely, git itself will want more than a > simple "-p1" patch for subproject handling. Ok. That's a sensible argument.