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 15:46:17 -0700 Message-ID: <7virk3l07a.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <200609041810.09838.jnareb@gmail.com> <200609041813.49103.jnareb@gmail.com> <200609042032.13742.jnareb@gmail.com> 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 00:46:15 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 1GKNCk-00056Y-JM for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:46:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932205AbWIDWpy (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:45:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932215AbWIDWpy (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:45:54 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.241.38]:30624 "EHLO fed1rmmtao01.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932205AbWIDWpx (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:45:53 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060904224553.EDQH6077.fed1rmmtao01.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:45:53 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id JNlm1V00r1kojtg0000000 Mon, 04 Sep 2006 18:45:47 -0400 To: Jakub Narebski In-Reply-To: (Jakub Narebski's message of "Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:34:06 +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: > 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.