Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 03.06.2010 19:07: > On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 04:57:44PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote: > >> May I kindly direct you to the next parts you cut out, especially the >> one talking about "described thorougly along with the >> rationale in 3/4", and to the commit message of 3/4? :) >> >> I'm not breaking existing tests, of course, which also test >> format-patch/apply cycles with symlinks. > > Yes, but you are breaking "git diff | git apply", aren't you? It is We don't have any tests for that then. I ran all tests with my patch. > already broken with textconv, but that is a new feature that people opt > into by using it. Symlink patches are a feature that has worked fine > until now with the above command. > > I don't think "but they should be using plumbing to generate patches" > is the right answer, either. Yes, we expect the diff porcelain to behave > differently depending on configuration, but with the exception of > textconv, it always produces an actual applicable patch. ...which is why you need to use diff --no-textconv for scripting, which is why I use that to decide about the symlink warnings! One could introduce a separate config for that, of course, if you mind unguarded diff|apply. But don't you think that those "No newline" warnings are just plain stupid for symlinks? Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html