[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120312165356.GD12405@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:53:56 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Thomas Rast <trast@....ethz.ch>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
git@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Rast <trast@...dent.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: stripping [PATCH] without losing later tags from mailed patches (Re: [ 02/12] Remove COMPAT_IA32 support)
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:41:49PM +0100, Thomas Rast wrote:
> [+cc Junio because of backwards-compat issues]
>
> Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 08:20:04AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't see a -b option to 'git am' in the manpage, am I missing
> >> something here?
> >
> > It's in the master tree only right now, and the option is "--keep-non-patch"
> > (could have been shorter). Currently rebuilding to test it :-)
>
> Exactly.
>
> The problem with -b is that it's a backwards-compatibility shorthand for
> --binary, which used to pass --allow-binary-replacement (or --binary) to
> git-apply. However, that option was obsoleted in 2b6eef9 (Make apply
> --binary a no-op., 2006-09-06) and has been a no-op for over 5 years.
> It has also not been documented since cb3a160 (git-am: ignore --binary
> option, 2008-08-09).
>
> So perhaps we can safely claim -b for --keep-non-patch, like so:
Yes I do think so, especially since 5 years ago, git commands were
called hyphenated like "git-am" instead of "git am". So I don't think
there's any risk in reusing the option.
Regards,
Willy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists