From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add support for URLs to git-apply Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:16:15 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <1197194672-28568-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> <1197194672-28568-2-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> <475C5869.4080900@op5.se> <7vhciro4vx.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071210064659.GA4148@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , Andreas Ericsson , git@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Hommey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 10 12:17:22 2007 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 1J1gdW-0006vP-9L for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:17:22 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751294AbXLJLQ6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:16:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751337AbXLJLQ5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:16:57 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:47737 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751294AbXLJLQ5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:16:57 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2007 11:16:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO openvpn-client) [138.251.11.103] by mail.gmx.net (mp030) with SMTP; 10 Dec 2007 12:16:55 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+DTsR5coeDsk4yWVkHAKxCriqYeSdEjMH4dXoL4G xJyV60S3LHgYTl X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <20071210064659.GA4148@glandium.org> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 02:54:58PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Andreas Ericsson writes: > > > > > Mike Hommey wrote: > > >> Instead of doing several "wget -O - url | git-apply -" in a raw, > > >> you now can just git-apply url1 url2 ... > > >> > > > > > > I seriously like this idea. Combined with gitweb (or cgit), it could > > > be used as a cherry-pick from someone else's repo :) > > > > FWIW, my initial impression is that I seriously dislike this. It may > > be good if the patch were to git-am, but when git-apply rejects an > > inapplicable patch, there won't be nothing left for you to recover > > with and you need to re-download the patch anyway. > > There are some usecase differences between git-apply and git-am. > Probably, this change would be good to have on both. But what about Junio's comments about a failed patch? You really want to hammer that poor webserver? My first thought when seeing your patch was: this would give us a chance to "clone" via gitweb. And while doing so, all but kill those webservers. So I thought it was wrong. When Junio mentioned git-am it was obvious to me that this is the "right" solution. I mean, we go out of our way to be nice to the servers, putting more load onto the clients, because there are many clients, but only one server (which is unfair). Please address these issues before further arguing that both apply and am should learn about URLs. Ciao, Dscho