Re: [RFC/PATCH 06/59] mv kernel/acpi/processor.c

Re: [RFC/PATCH 06/59] mv kernel/acpi/processor.c

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Move kernel/acpi/processor.c to the common hold.

Please use

	git diff -M

for things like this.

In fact, even if you weren't a git user, I'd ask you to *become* one just 
because I think that it's a *lot* more productive if people actually see 
renames as renames, and will see what - if anything - changed when 
renaming.

The "-M" flag isn't the default, simply because it generates patches that 
cannot be applied with regular "patch", but for something like this, I 
think it's practically imperative. The old kind of "remove file" + "add 
file" patch just isn't acceptable when there are very viable alternaties.

You don't even have to use a git repository to use a git rename patch - 
you just need to use "git apply" to apply it.

		Linus

Re: [RFC/PATCH 06/59] mv kernel/acpi/processor.c

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 14:32 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > Move kernel/acpi/processor.c to the common hold.
> 
> Please use
> 
> 	git diff -M

OK, thanks!  I'm still quite a git-nubie.

I'll update all the move patches. It may take a bit of hand work.

What I really did to do this patch series was to make all my changes in
git.  But the changes where not smooth from change set to change set. So
I did one big git-diff, and then used good old midnight commander (mc)
to parse the patches. And then pulled them into quilt to comment and
send them.


> 
> for things like this.
> 
> In fact, even if you weren't a git user, I'd ask you to *become* one just 
> because I think that it's a *lot* more productive if people actually see 
> renames as renames, and will see what - if anything - changed when 
> renaming.
> 
> The "-M" flag isn't the default, simply because it generates patches that 
> cannot be applied with regular "patch", but for something like this, I 
> think it's practically imperative. The old kind of "remove file" + "add 
> file" patch just isn't acceptable when there are very viable alternaties.

I wish I knew this before breaking it up.   But I'm sure I can do
another big patch and automate these updates :)

-- Steve