Re: git apply vs patch -p1
| От | Jeff Janes |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: git apply vs patch -p1 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMkU=1wJ+RGubfv5QCzz2R4PvfR2SW6xY+JfeLje+4jj6zX05g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: git apply vs patch -p1 (Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>) |
| Ответы |
Re: git apply vs patch -p1
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> "Josh" == Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
Josh> The issue isn't that, it's that git apply is just buggy and
Josh> can't tell the difference between a new file and a modified
Josh> one.
It's not the fault of git apply; the patch contained explicit
annotations on all the files claiming that they were new. Both the
patches I've looked at so far (picksplit NaNs and enable_material)
had the same defect.
The question is, how are these submitters preparing their patches?
I used "git diff" configured to use src/tools/git-external-diff, as described here:
The resulting patch applies fine with patch, but not with git apply.
If I instead generate a patch with git diff --no-ext-diff, then it applies with git apply.
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: