Re: patch(1) and git -M output (Re: [PATCH 2/2] FRV: Move to arch/frv/include/asm/)

From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, sam@ravnborg.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: patch(1) and git -M output (Re: [PATCH 2/2] FRV: Move to arch/frv/include/asm/)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:06:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200904100006.54473.agruen@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090409182803.GE26366@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>

On Thursday, 9 April 2009 20:28:03 Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 07:13:29PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > We can teach patch(1) to handle those - apparently agruen has resurrected
> > development lately (git://git.savannah.gnu.org/patch.git), so it might
> > be possible without usual latency problems...
>
> From the quick look it appears that src/pch.c::intuit_diff_type() is the
> place where it could be done, with inname and outfile set according to
> rename from/rename to lines.  Might need some flag to make the damn thing
> reset outfile when we are done with this one; hopefully, the next call
> of intuit_diff_type() wouldn't be too late for that, but that's just from
> a very cursory reading of the code.
>
> Andreas, do you have anything of that kind queued?

I've flushed my queue over the last weeks; nothing significant is pending 
right now.  At the moment I'm trying to stabilize patch for the next stable 
release, which is supposed to happen in about a month's time.  Anything major 
would go into the release after that.

> If not, I'll probably take a stab at that (handling git -M output, that is).

Patches are welcome. (I hope you won't mind the GNU copyright assignment / 
disclaimer paperwork.)

Thanks,
Andreas