From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>
Cc: bug-patch@gnu.org,
"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, "Magnus Damm" <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
"Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD" <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bug-patch] [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run,
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 23:32:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100903233252.GD30310@burratino> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201009040058.18028.agruen@suse.de>
Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> something pretty bizarre is going on here. The wget output modifies the same
> file twice, but both patches to this file have the same source sha1 (5645f35):
From the git v1.6.0-rc0~92 changelog entry:
apply: fix copy/rename breakage
7ebd52a (Merge branch 'dz/apply-again', 2008-07-01) taught "git-apply" to
grok a (non-git) patch that is a concatenation of separate patches that
touch the same file number of times, by recording the postimage of patch
application of previous round and using it as the preimage for later
rounds.
This "incremental" mode of patch application fundamentally contradicts
with the way git rename/copy patches are designed. When a git patch talks
about a file A getting modified, and a new file B created out of A, like
this:
diff --git a/A b/A
--- a/A
+++ b/A
... change text here ...
diff --git a/A b/B
copy from A
copy to B
--- a/A
+++ b/B
... change text here ...
the second change to produce B does not depend on what is done to A with
the first change in any way. This is explicitly done so for reviewability
of individual patches.
With this commit, we do not look at 'fn_table' that records the postimage
of previous round when applying a patch to produce a new file out of an
existing file.
> How was this patch generated: with git itself?
Yes, the patch basically agrees with what I get by applying it and running
git format-patch -M -B HEAD^..HEAD
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-03 23:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-31 11:16 [RFC] [PATCH] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2010-09-01 9:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-01 11:13 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2010-09-01 23:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-02 2:37 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2010-09-02 2:42 ` Paul Mundt
2010-09-01 9:51 `
2010-09-01 11:18 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2010-09-01 15:01 `
2010-09-01 15:27 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2010-09-01 15:40 `
2010-09-01 23:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-02 5:46 `
2010-09-02 8:45 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-01 10:01 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-01 11:12 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2010-09-02 12:48 ` [RFC] [PATCH v2] " Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2010-09-02 13:06 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-02 13:26 `
2010-09-02 13:47 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-02 13:55 `
2010-09-02 13:39 ` [PATCH V3] " Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2010-09-03 10:18 ` Magnus Damm
2010-09-03 10:32 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2010-09-03 18:23 `
2010-09-03 18:43 ` [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: Jonathan Nieder
2010-09-03 19:29 ` [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-03 19:33 `
2010-09-03 19:45 ` [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factoris Andreas Schwab
2010-09-04 0:03 ` [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-04 21:33 ` [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] ar Andreas Gruenbacher
2010-09-04 21:45 ` [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-04 21:46 ` [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] ar Andreas Gruenbacher
2010-09-04 22:01 ` [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-04 22:26 ` [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] ar Andreas Gruenbacher
2010-09-03 19:34 ` [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factoris Matthieu Moy
2010-09-03 22:58 ` [bug-patch] [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & Andreas Gruenbacher
2010-09-03 23:32 ` Jonathan Nieder [this message]
2010-09-04 21:57 ` Andreas Gruenbacher
2010-09-04 3:21 ` [bug-patch] [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2010-09-09 9:53 ` [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2010-09-14 7:59 ` Paul Mundt
2010-09-15 5:51 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2010-10-04 19:46 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
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=20100903233252.GD30310@burratino \
--to=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=agruen@suse.de \
--cc=bug-patch@gnu.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
--cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.com \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
/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).