Re: [PATCH] Further changes, thanks to <tp@lists.linux.it>

["Paolo Ciarrocchi" <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>]

On 8/8/07, Michael <barra_cuda@katamail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 August 2007 17:27, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> > Further changes, thanks to <tp@lists.linux.it>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>
> > ---
>
> Is it just me, or this patch is corrupted?
>
> >  po/it.po |  130
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------ 1 files
> > changed, 67 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
>
> git-am says:
>
>         Applying Further changes, thanks to <tp@lists.linux.it>
>
>         fatal: corrupt patch at line 13
>         Patch failed at 0001.
>
> git-gui-i18n$ grep ^- .dotest/0001 | wc
>      66     434    3074
> git-gui-i18n$ grep ^+ .dotest/0001 | wc
>      27     105     955
>
> I think there's a problem somewhere...
>
> > diff --git a/po/it.po b/po/it.po
> > index e87263e..1950b56 100644
> > --- a/po/it.po
> > +++ b/po/it.po
> > @@ -2,18 +2,21 @@
> >  # Copyright (C) 2007 Shawn Pearce
> >  # This file is distributed under the same license as the git-gui
> > package. # Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>, 2007
>
> Whitespace/newline corruption?
>
> > -"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
> > -"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
> > +"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1\n"
> > +"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit"
>
> I'd guess the previous version is better :)
>
> > @@ -34,9 +37,9 @@ msgid ""
> >  "\n"
> >  "Assume '%s' is version 1.5.0?\n"
> >  msgstr ""
> > -"La versione di GIT non può essere determinata.\n"
> >  "\n"
> > -"%s sostiene che la versione è '%s'.\n"
> >  "\n"
> >  "%s richiede almeno Git 1.5.0 o superiore.\n"
> >  "\n"
>
> Here and in many other places there are unneeded deletions... Is
> that what you wanted? I don't think so, since the hunk header says
> "@@ -34,9 +37,9 @@". I guess gmail has done a mess with your
> patch: git-am had some problems parsing the headers too.
>
> You should try to mail the same patch to yourself and re-apply that on
> your tree to see if it fails.

I don't know what happened :-(

I'll redo the patch.

Thanks.

Regards,

-- 
Paolo
http://paolo.ciarrocchi.googlepages.com/