From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: git apply vs patch -p1 |
Date: | 2013-09-14 19:03:52 |
Message-ID: | 5234B318.5020406@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2013-09-14 19:04:34 | Re: Proposal: PL/PgSQL strict_mode |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-09-14 18:58:32 | Re: record identical operator |