Re: [PATCH 2/2] diffcore-pickaxe: add --pickaxe-raw-diff for use with -G

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 02:25:13PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: [..] > Do you or anyone have a suggestion for a better CLI option name? > > Maybe --pickaxe-patch or --pickaxe-patch-format (to go with git-diff's > -u aka --patch (i.e. not --raw) default format)? Or > --pickaxe-G-with-conte

Re: [PATCH 2/2] diffcore-pickaxe: add --pickaxe-raw-diff for use with -G

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 09:44:40AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: [..] > So the user would be able to say something like > > git log -Ux --since=6.months | > git patch-grep \ > --commit-names-only \ > --all-match \ > -e '+.*devm_request_threaded_

[no subject]

Bcc: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] diffcore-pickaxe: add --pickaxe-raw-diff for use with -G Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <20190503031531.ga19...@sigill.intra.peff.net> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 11:15:31PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 02:54:48AM +0200, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: >

Re: [PATCH 2/2] diffcore-pickaxe: add --pickaxe-raw-diff for use with -G

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 01:24:56AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25 2019, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > > > Hi Ævar, > > > > Thanks for the amazingly fast reply and for the useful feature (yay!). > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 05:37:10

Re: [PATCH 2/2] diffcore-pickaxe: add --pickaxe-raw-diff for use with -G

Hi Ævar, Thanks for the amazingly fast reply and for the useful feature (yay!). On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 05:37:10PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 24 2019, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > Add the ability for the -G pickaxe to search only through added > > or removed l

Multi-line 'git log -G'?

Hello git community, In the context of [1], I would like to find all Linux commits which replaced: 'devm_request_threaded_irq(* IRQF_SHARED *)' by: 'devm_request_threaded_irq(* IRQF_ONESHOT *)' Actually, I would be happy with a much lower degree of precision, e.g. finding commits

Re: Make patch-id more flexible?

Hello Junio, > > file-names. Here comes my actual question. Would it be conceptually fine > > to implement some `git patch-id` parameter, which would allow ignoring > > the file-names (or reducing those to their `basename`) before computing > > the patch id? Or would it break the concept of patch

Make patch-id more flexible?

Dear git Community, This is my first post to the git mailing list, so I would first like to express my gratitude to everyone involved in developing one of my favorite development tools. I will make my question short and concrete. My day to day job is doing Linux kernel integration, which also inc