Re: git apply vs patch -p1

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
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 20:00:09
Message-ID: 5234C049.8050700@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 09/14/2013 03:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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?
>
>

Yes, of course you can roll back as long as you haven't published your
commits. But it's a nuisance.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-09-14 20:04:48 PL Code Archive Proposal
Previous Message Jaime Casanova 2013-09-14 19:55:15 Re: Assertions in PL/PgSQL