Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>I am reluctant to actually do this right away, because this is
>an incompatible change from the current format:
>
>$ git format-patch his mine
>
Of course this breaks qgit interface to git-format-patch-script
but if you think it's better this way
>The same goes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
> What format-patch does is currently is fine. If format-patch would
> simply notice the case and fail gracefully that would be sufficient to
> avoid giving false impressions.
Hmph. Since it uses merge-order, We should be able to change it
use the t
Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>
>> I was trying to help someone track down a bug that
>> occurred between linux-2.6.12 and linux-2.6.13-rc1.
>> Since it was very much an unknown where the problem
>> was introduced I decided to run git fo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
> I was trying to help someone track down a bug that
> occurred between linux-2.6.12 and linux-2.6.13-rc1.
> Since it was very much an unknown where the problem
> was introduced I decided to run git format-patch
> so I could see what all of the differe
I haven't had a chance to investigate this much
yet but I have ran into a peculiar problem.
I was trying to help someone track down a bug that
occurred between linux-2.6.12 and linux-2.6.13-rc1.
Since it was very much an unknown where the problem
was introduced I decided to run git format-patch
s
5 matches
Mail list logo
