Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> O.K. This one introduced new feature, and wasn't needed for earlier >> accepted patch (output empty patches) to have sense. And it is rc1 >> phase... > > I personally do not mind minor gitweb 'feature' updates in -rc > cycle, just like I am planning to see if there are gitk updates > I haven't pulled from Paulus (I think there is at least one > patch from last month or so), unless the changes do not break it > so badly. I'll resend corrected patch then... >> By the way, where I can find proper specifiction of unified diff format? >> Do I understand correctly that bot from and to ranges can be without >> number of lines part if it simplifies to 0? > > When Linus did apply.c and I did diff.c, we primarily worked off > of sources to GNU patch. > > There is a POSIX draft proposal now. > > http://www.opengroup.org/austin/mailarchives/ag-review/msg02077.html > > See also updates about the proposal. > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/29331/focus=29389 Thanks a lot. Personally I think that we should push for git extended headers to be (as an option) in POSIX for unifed diff... well, with the exception of index and similarity lines. ;-) -- Jakub Narebski Poland - 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