Re: [PATCH] add -p: coalesce hunks before testing applicability

[Jochen Sprickerhof <jochen@sprickerhof.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1231 bytes --]

* Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@talktalk.net> [2018-09-13 11:20]:
>Yes in the long term we want to be able to coalesce edited hunks, but I
>think it is confusing to call coalesce_overlapping_hunks() at the moment
>as it will not coalesce the edited hunks.

I would see it as a first step into that direction.

>I think that if you split a hunk, edit the first subhunk, transforming a
>trailing context line to a deletion then try if you try to stage the
>second subhunk it will fail. With your patch the edit will succeed as
>the second subhunk is skipped when testing the edited patch. Then when
>you try to stage the second subhunk it will fail as it's leading context
>will contradict the trailing lines of the edited subhunk. With the old
>method the edit failed but didn't store up trouble for the future.

Agreed. I guess the question is if you assume a hunk to be applied or 
skipped as the default. You can still find enough cases where neither 
the current nor the patched version works. I stumbled upon the one case 
where I wanted to stage only one part of a split hunk and that one 
worked after my patch. I leave it up to you if the added benefit 
overweights the stored up trouble.

Cheers Jochen

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]