Re: [GIT PATCH] USB patches for 2.6.17

Randy.Dunlap
2006-06-22T18:46:20Z

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:30:21 -0700 Greg KH wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 11:18:26AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 06:22:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > And as usual, the diff options work fine with "git log" too, so you can do
> > >
> > > git log -M --stat --summary
> > >
> > > and it will do the right thing. Look at your ae0dadcf.. commit, for
> > > example.
> > >
> > > Btw, the _one_ thing to be careful about is that when you generate a real
> > > patch with "-M", if that patch actually has a rename, then only "git
> > > apply" will be able to apply it correctly, and if somebody uses a regular
> > > "patch" program to apply it, they'll miss out on the rename, of course.
> > >
> > > Some day maybe the git "extended patch format" is so univerally recognized
> > > to be superior that everybody understands them, in the meantime you may
> > > not want to use "-M" to generate patches unless you know the other end
> > > applies them with git.
> > >
> > > (Which also explains why "-M" is not the default, of course).
> >
> > For now I'll leave -M off, as people might want to apply the patches
> > from email. Although it might cut down on main bandwidth, and they can
> > always refer to the git tree or original patch... I'll think about that
> > one.
>
> I take that back. I just used -M for the W1 patch series and I think it
> is very helpful as it shows only the lines that change in a rename,
> which can easily get lost in the noise of a longer patch.
>
> Very nice stuff, have I mentioned lately how much I love git?

Um, I was going to say that my patch wasn't listed in the
shortlog that you sent (for W1), but it's there, just mis-attributed
to Evgeniy (#13/14).

---
~Randy