Re: [GIT PATCH] USB patches for 2.6.17

Greg KH
2006-06-22T18:33:49Z

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?

thanks,

greg k-h