From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: git apply vs patch -p1 |
Date: | 2013-09-14 19:08:19 |
Message-ID: | 20130914190819.GB2291@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-09-14 15:03:52 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 09/14/2013 02:37 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >Lately I've been running into a lot of reports of false conflicts
> >reported by "git apply". The most recent one was the "points" patch,
> >which git apply rejected for completely ficticious reasons (it claimed
> >that the patch was trying to create a new file where a file already
> >existed, which it wasn't).
> >
> >I think we should modify the patch review and developer instructions to
> >recommend always using patch -p1 (or -p0, depending), even if the patch
> >was produced with "git diff".
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
>
>
> FWIW that's what I invariably use.
>
> You do have to be careful to git-add/git-rm any added/deleted files, which
> git-apply does for you (as well as renames) - I've been caught by that a
> couple of times.
git reset?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-09-14 19:23:37 | json docs fixup |
Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2013-09-14 19:04:34 | Re: Proposal: PL/PgSQL strict_mode |