From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Allow fetch-pack to decide keeping the fetched pack without exploding Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:22:43 +0100 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: <7v64b04v2e.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v3b6439uh.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vzm8ansrt.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <87sle17lnm.fsf@morpheus.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 23 18:22:25 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H9PLl-0000eK-8V for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:22:25 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964999AbXAWRWN (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:22:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965012AbXAWRWN (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:22:13 -0500 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:42056 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965038AbXAWRWM (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:22:12 -0500 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H9PLM-0004Sk-1h for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:22:00 +0100 Received: from host-81-190-20-200.torun.mm.pl ([81.190.20.200]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:22:00 +0100 Received: from jnareb by host-81-190-20-200.torun.mm.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:22:00 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: git@vger.kernel.org X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-81-190-20-200.torun.mm.pl Mail-Copies-To: jnareb@gmail.com User-Agent: KNode/0.10.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Seriously again, your comment got me thinking: it could actually make > sense to include the information of code moves and code copies (for easier > review) in the "@@ .. @@" lines (or before them, if git apply does not > choke on inserting garbage lines before them). > > But maybe it is not that good after all: if you review code, you should > inspect it (even if it was only moved), since it might have all kinds of > side effects, or you might have missed some other aspect before. It would be nice to have extended git header dealing with code copies (or stuff it in chunk header or above), because sometimes both sides of code movement (removal from one file, adding in next file) can be separated by a few pagefulls of chunks. -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git