From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: git-apply{,mbox,patch} should default to --unidiff-zero Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:49:51 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <20070705232210.GR3492@stusta.de> <20070706014222.GK3492@stusta.de> <20070706022629.GL3492@stusta.de> <7vd4z6gkbk.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070706121441.GM3492@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org To: Adrian Bunk X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jul 06 14:57:03 2007 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1I6nMs-0004Ym-IN for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:57:02 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760891AbXGFM5A (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:57:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760738AbXGFM5A (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:57:00 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:42194 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1760702AbXGFM47 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:56:59 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Jul 2007 12:56:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp052) with SMTP; 06 Jul 2007 14:56:58 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19pOrNvQb5pVoVdHsS4/q7nCprPt7wjMLx5015nDb Xu5cUWxLU6IvIO X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <20070706121441.GM3492@stusta.de> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 10:41:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Linus Torvalds writes: > >... > > > Adrian has a point in that if there are lines to be deleted, that in > > > itself is context, and then the strict behaviour of "git-apply" is > > > arguably unnecessaily strict. > > > > Not really. That is true, unless you have two identical instances of > > the group of lines being deleted, in which case you cannot safely tell > > which instance is to be removed. > >... > > The interesting thing is that you can never safely tell it for any > amount of context - I've seen patches with three lines of context being > applied at the wrong place simply because there were several matching > contexts. Yes, that is right. You can never safely tell. But now you want to allow even less context by default. In which you can even "more neverer" safely tell. That is why I am disagreeing with that change. Ciao, Dscho