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 21:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <7viroezi8s.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vd5emze3h.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 06:52:10 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 1Fdgg9-0001vh-DR for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 06:52:05 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964811AbWEJEvz (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2006 00:51:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964812AbWEJEvz (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2006 00:51:55 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:39301 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964811AbWEJEvz (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2006 00:51:55 -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 k4A4pjtH009231 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 9 May 2006 21:51:46 -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 k4A4pibp002245; Tue, 9 May 2006 21:51:45 -0700 To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7vd5emze3h.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> 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, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > It is problematic but not more than the current index + "Binary > files differ" output. If you have both pre and postimage then > you do not need the binary data. Fair enough. > > But at least in theory we might well want to do "-R" eventually. > > Yes, but even without binary, -R has a funny implication when > copy-edit patch is involved. What if a patch copy-edits to > create a new file B based on old A, and also modifies A > in-place, and somehow the postimages of A and B you already have > are not consistent with what that patch does? Yeah, that could get exciting ;) Linus