Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 07:45:19AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>> ... It's an interesting idea from git person's point of
>> view (i.e. "would be fun to implement"), but I doubt it would be useful in
Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now consider the following patch (modified by hand: it should say
> +foo, but I changed it to +bar).
> ...
> The "index ..." stuff says that there are no changes and it is
> pure rename, but obviously there is a change.
Ah, I see what you mean. But i
Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ..rename and changes ideally go in separate patches.
>
> IIRC this also helps git to track renames (it can easily compare
> hashes instead of guessing).
It does not help much, and it is frowned upon (at least by well educated
users in git circle) beca
Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> 3 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 201 deletions(-)
>>> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kernel/dma.c
>>> delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kernel/dma_64.c
>>
>> Passing -M to git format-patch makes it much easier
>
> I always thought that posting "
