From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: git-apply{,mbox,patch} should default to --unidiff-zero
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 02:51:07 +0100 (BST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707060243110.4093@racer.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070706014222.GK3492@stusta.de>
Hi,
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 02:18:46AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > > git-apply{,mbox,patch} should default to doing --unidiff-zero:
> >
> > But is that not dangerous? At least now the committer has some
> > safeguard against this kind of mistakes. Because you can easily
> > introduce mistakes that way.
>
> you are saying "easily".
>
> Did you ever actually run into such a problem?
Not yet, thankfully.
> You must do something like "diff -U0" or manually editing patches for
> creating such patches, and that's very unusual.
The point is that the _committer_ is not necessarily involved in that
business.
And "git apply" is strict for a reason. It catches possibly unwanted
things much earlier than patch. I _want_ to be warned that somebody is
introducing some code at a certain position, which might, or might not be
correct. apply has no way to tell, since there is no context to at least
minimally verify.
> And although GNU patch (which has a much bigger userbase than git)
> applies such patches without any warning I don't remember having ever
> seen what you call "easily".
GNU patch is very sloppy. And I had to fix up quite a number of patches
which were "successfully" applied, but did not do what they were supposed
to do. The recent "GNU patch applies _indented_ _context_ diffs" fracass
is only one example why I prefer git apply.
Unfortunately, I do not off-hand remember if I had to fix up a
unified-zero patch that GNU patch applied, but I do know this:
if "git am" learns to apply unified-zero by default, the first
thing I will do is patch it in my Git branch to _not_ do that. I
do _not_ want that. I want to be warned.
I can still decide that it is probably okay, but I will make
_damned_ _well_ sure afterwards that it did something sensible. I
will _only_ apply such a scrutiny when git apply refused to apply
a unified-zero patch, and I decided to apply it nevertheless.
Ciao,
Dscho
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-06 1:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-05 23:22 git-apply{,mbox,patch} should default to --unidiff-zero Adrian Bunk
2007-07-06 1:18 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-07-06 1:42 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-07-06 1:51 ` Johannes Schindelin [this message]
2007-07-06 2:26 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-07-06 3:16 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-07-06 4:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-07-06 5:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-07-06 12:14 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-07-06 12:49 ` Johannes Schindelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0707060243110.4093@racer.site \
--to=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).