From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: What's in git.git Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 21:26:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <7viroezi8s.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 10 06:26:42 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdgHV-00066o-Rw for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 06:26:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964802AbWEJE0f (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2006 00:26:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964804AbWEJE0f (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2006 00:26:35 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:40832 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964802AbWEJE0f (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2006 00:26:35 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k4A4QPtH008504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 9 May 2006 21:26:25 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k4A4QOhk001774; Tue, 9 May 2006 21:26:24 -0700 To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.74__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.134 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 9 May 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I think the new binary diff is non-reversible. That's ok right now, since > we don't actually support patching in reverse (if you want to get the > reverse patch, you need to _diff_ it in reverse and then patch it that > way). Btw, I don't actually know why we don't support "-R". The way git-apply is written, it should be totally trivial (just switch old/new around for data and line numbers - since it doesn't actually apply the patch directly line by line or anything like that) for a normal patch. So if I read the binary patch right, the lack of "-R" went from "silly oversight" to "uhhuh, I don't think the patch format supports it". Maybe it's not a big deal. Linus