From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Schwab Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:45:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factoris Message-Id: List-Id: References: <1283431716-21540-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <1283434786-26479-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <20100903182323.GA17152@pengutronix.de> <20100903184351.GC2341@burratino> <20100903192907.GA2978@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20100903193309.GC29821@pengutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <20100903193309.GC29821@pengutronix.de> ("Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Klein?= =?utf-8?Q?e-K=C3=B6nig=22's?= message of "Fri, 3 Sep 2010 21:33:09 +0200") MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , Jonathan Nieder , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, bug-patch@gnu.org, Magnus Damm , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD , git@vger.kernel.org Uwe Kleine-K=C3=B6nig writes: > Still GNU patch should then already fail in --dry-run mode. Since --dry-run doesn't actually perform any changes it can easily be fooled when a file is patched twice. Andreas. --=20 Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint =3D 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."