From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow passing of --directory to git-am. Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:33:26 -0800 Message-ID: <7v7i6fd0zt.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <49382612.3010207@fs.ei.tum.de> <7vhc5jeo60.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <49385908.5020202@fs.ei.tum.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git To: Simon 'corecode' Schubert X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Dec 04 23:34:52 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1L8MmX-0002FP-Ie for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:34:50 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753796AbYLDWdc (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:33:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753797AbYLDWdc (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:33:32 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:34071 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753774AbYLDWdb (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:33:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583DA181E2; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:33:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46B70181CA; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:33:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <49385908.5020202@fs.ei.tum.de> (Simon Schubert's message of "Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:26:16 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 94155174-C253-11DD-8A06-F83E113D384A-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Simon 'corecode' Schubert writes: > You mean not storing/restoring the flags across an invocation? No, > that's a different thing. My patch only adds the --directory option, > it does not fix the previously existing bug. The question is if it _introduces_ a bug that the directory given in the initial invocation of "git am --directory=foo" is lost if an patch does not apply and you need to manually resolve and continue. If it does not introduce such a bug, you do not have the same issue as the old patch. Otherwise you have the same issue as the old patch. The question was if you have the same issue or you don't. Yes? No?