Re: [PATCH] git-daemon server

[Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>]

>>>>> "DB" == Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:

DB> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

>> BTW, don't we want to have them renamed to git-ssh-pull (and
>> git-ssh-push) for consistency with other transports, before 1.0
>> happens?

DB> I think that would be good, but I'm still using a really old version of
DB> git for my development, so I don't have your diff rename support; could
DB> you send a patch to do it?

I am sorry, but you lost me.  I am afraid that I do not
understand what you are asking me to send you: a patch to do
what?  Tell your old git how to do -M/-C?  That would be "the
tip of Linus repository"...

Ah (lightbulb!), are you asking me to send the patch in the
git-extended rename diff format, like this?

    $ git-diff-cache -p -B -C HEAD
    diff --git a/Documentation/git-rpull.txt b/Documentation/git-ssh-pull.txt
    similarity index 89%
    rename old Documentation/git-rpull.txt
    rename new Documentation/git-ssh-pull.txt
    --- a/Documentation/git-rpull.txt
    +++ b/Documentation/git-ssh-pull.txt
    @@ -1,20 +1,20 @@
    -git-rpull(1)
    -============
    +git-ssh-pull(1)
    +===============
     v0.1, May 2005
    ...

I am not sure if this is suitable for patch submission.  I did
the rename/copy stuff mostly for software archaeology purposes
(meaning, you examine what is in your repository), not to
generate patches for submission via e-mail.

It certainly is a good test for the git-apply stuff Linus has
been working on, and in addition it would have a good amusement
value to see how well it would work (or how badly it would barf
;-), but I suspect Linus (or, rather, his "dotest" script) would
appreciate it more if it came in the traditional diff format
that does not use the rename stuff.  I dunno.  Let's ask Linus
first.

Linus, can your workflow grok things like this, or do you prefer
patch submission to use traditional diff format without renames?