From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Gruenbacher Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:26:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] ar Message-Id: <201009050026.08235.agruen@suse.de> List-Id: References: <1283431716-21540-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <201009042346.11787.agruen@suse.de> <20100904220152.GB20444@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20100904220152.GB20444@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: bug-patch@gnu.org, Uwe =?iso-8859-1?q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Magnus Damm , Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Sunday 05 September 2010 00:01:52 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 11:46:11PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > On Saturday 04 September 2010 23:45:27 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > It also makes them incompatible with GNU patch, whether or not GNU patch > > > understands the GIT headers. > > > > Aha? Then why do you think GNU patch tries to understand the GIt patch > > headers? So that it can be incompatible with GIT? > > Read what you said last time around. "In this case, the patch itself is > broken." I was corrected on that by Jonathan Nieder's mail which describes a detail of the GIT patch format that I didn't know about. So it's a bug in the way GNU patch handles the git patch format and not an error in the patch. Not nice and probably not easy to fix, but not fundamentally unfixable. Andreas From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: agruen@suse.de (Andreas Gruenbacher) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 00:26:08 +0200 Subject: [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c) In-Reply-To: <20100904220152.GB20444@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1283431716-21540-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <201009042346.11787.agruen@suse.de> <20100904220152.GB20444@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <201009050026.08235.agruen@suse.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sunday 05 September 2010 00:01:52 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 11:46:11PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > On Saturday 04 September 2010 23:45:27 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > It also makes them incompatible with GNU patch, whether or not GNU patch > > > understands the GIT headers. > > > > Aha? Then why do you think GNU patch tries to understand the GIt patch > > headers? So that it can be incompatible with GIT? > > Read what you said last time around. "In this case, the patch itself is > broken." I was corrected on that by Jonathan Nieder's mail which describes a detail of the GIT patch format that I didn't know about. So it's a bug in the way GNU patch handles the git patch format and not an error in the patch. Not nice and probably not easy to fix, but not fundamentally unfixable. Andreas From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Gruenbacher Subject: Re: [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 00:26:08 +0200 Organization: SUSE Labs Message-ID: <201009050026.08235.agruen@suse.de> References: <1283431716-21540-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <201009042346.11787.agruen@suse.de> <20100904220152.GB20444@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bug-patch@gnu.org, "Uwe =?iso-8859-1?q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=" , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Magnus Damm , Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org, "Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org To: "Russell King - ARM Linux" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 05 00:32:04 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Os1HF-000205-IR for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:32:01 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754170Ab0IDWcA (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2010 18:32:00 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:59150 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754158Ab0IDWb7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Sep 2010 18:31:59 -0400 Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.2]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931C679727; Sun, 5 Sep 2010 00:31:58 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.31.12-0.2-desktop; KDE/4.3.5; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20100904220152.GB20444@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sunday 05 September 2010 00:01:52 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 11:46:11PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > On Saturday 04 September 2010 23:45:27 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > It also makes them incompatible with GNU patch, whether or not GNU patch > > > understands the GIT headers. > > > > Aha? Then why do you think GNU patch tries to understand the GIt patch > > headers? So that it can be incompatible with GIT? > > Read what you said last time around. "In this case, the patch itself is > broken." I was corrected on that by Jonathan Nieder's mail which describes a detail of the GIT patch format that I didn't know about. So it's a bug in the way GNU patch handles the git patch format and not an error in the patch. Not nice and probably not easy to fix, but not fundamentally unfixable. Andreas