Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757629AbcJXV2G (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:28:06 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f182.google.com ([209.85.192.182]:36597 "EHLO mail-pf0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756085AbcJXV2D (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:28:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:27:54 -0400 From: Jarod Wilson To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Josh Boyer , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: Linux-4.X-rcY patches can't be applied with git? Message-ID: <20161024212754.GI42084@redhat.com> References: <20161024182503.GH42084@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1934 Lines: 46 On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 02:10:30PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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? Yes and no. What are these non-git people doing with the patches? Since patch won't apply them, are they just reading them for personal enlightenment? i.e., who really actually uses tarballs and the patches anymore outside of distros for packaging, and for what? From a distro standpoint, I think we'd like to at least continue to see release tarballs, but we could quite easily make do with the "just don't even bother" approach for RC patches. > 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.. If "just generate your own" is the best answer, I'm okay with that for my own use case, and I'll let Josh speak for the Fedora case. Just wanted to make sure we weren't missing something obvious, and figured it couldn't hurt to ask if it were simply a case of nobody having said there were issues with them for what I imagine is one of their few remaining uses. :) -- Jarod Wilson jarod@redhat.com