On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 02:55:37AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > A git patch that does not change the executable bit still records the mode > on its "index" line. "git apply" used to interpret this mode exactly the > same way as it interprets the mode recorded on "new mode" line. As the > wish by the patch submitter to set the mode to the one recorded on the > line. Nit: I had to read that third sentence several times to make sense of it, since it is not a complete sentence (I think s/line\. As/line: as/ might help). > This changes the semantics of the mode recorded on the "index" line; > instead of interpreting it as the submitter's wish to set the mode to the > recorded value, it merely informs what the mode submitter happened to > have, and the presense of the "index" line is taken as submitter's wish to > keep whatever the mode is on the receiving end. I have been following this thread but didn't have a chance to look closely until now. I think this change is definitely the right thing, as it follows the normal semantics for a patch (which are basically a merge: "change the parts we changed, but leave everything else, even if the other side changed it"). > builtin-apply.c | 4 ++- The implementation looks good to me. > t/t4129-apply-samemode.sh | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ And the tests make me feel warm and fuzzy. It is always nice to see tests that aren't just "X was broken, and now it works" or "new feature Y works" but "here is every case spelled out with its desired behavior." I think those are the tests that really help keep us regression-proof. -Peff -- 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
