Thomas Rast wrote: > 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: Thanks. It we want to be extra friendly to people who have been using "format-patch --binary" with "am -b" in their scripts, we could have a transitional period during which -b is treated as a usage error. Luckily, a quick Google code search does not reveal any users for "am -b", so I am not too worried and would not mind your patch that just switches over right away, though. After all, the failure modes are: - if my current script using "am -b" gets run using ancient git, it will accept binary patches and will strip out too many brackets in the subject line - if my ancient script using "am -b" gets run using current git, it will helpefully keep [IA64] brackets in the subject line Neither seems terribly painful. The manual would need to mention that this once meant --binary to avoid confusion when that happens. Hope that helps, Jonathan -- 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