Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S941300AbcJXVKd (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:10:33 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f66.google.com ([209.85.218.66]:34713 "EHLO mail-oi0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934108AbcJXVKb (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:10:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20161024182503.GH42084@redhat.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:10:30 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: A6lhg6Dqsdeain6kx8OWQyuug3M Message-ID: Subject: Re: Linux-4.X-rcY patches can't be applied with git? To: Josh Boyer Cc: Jarod Wilson , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Greg Kroah-Hartman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 993 Lines: 29 On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > The benefit of tarballs and patches from a distribution standpoint is > purely size. I wonder if you wouldn't be better off just generating your own diffs. If you know the other end uses "git apply", then not only can you use "--binary", but you can also enable rename detection. That will often shrink the diffs a *lot*. So for _me_, the primary use of patches is for non-git people. They are hopefully rare by now, but quite frankly, if they go away as an issue, then the solution for me isn't "start using fancier patches that rely on git", but "don't even bother with tar-balls and patches at all". See? But if you want to see patches as a distribution format for a distro, then your issues are different, and you may well want to use "--binary" and "-M" to generate patches. It's just that your reasons to use patches sound very different from _my_ reasons to use patches.. Linus