[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-patch] [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected wi
From: |
Jonathan Nieder |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-patch] [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c) |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Sep 2010 18:32:52 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> something pretty bizarre is going on here. The wget output modifies the same
> file twice, but both patches to this file have the same source sha1 (5645f35):
>From the git v1.6.0-rc0~92 changelog entry:
apply: fix copy/rename breakage
7ebd52a (Merge branch 'dz/apply-again', 2008-07-01) taught "git-apply" to
grok a (non-git) patch that is a concatenation of separate patches that
touch the same file number of times, by recording the postimage of patch
application of previous round and using it as the preimage for later
rounds.
This "incremental" mode of patch application fundamentally contradicts
with the way git rename/copy patches are designed. When a git patch talks
about a file A getting modified, and a new file B created out of A, like
this:
diff --git a/A b/A
--- a/A
+++ b/A
... change text here ...
diff --git a/A b/B
copy from A
copy to B
--- a/A
+++ b/B
... change text here ...
the second change to produce B does not depend on what is done to A with
the first change in any way. This is explicitly done so for reviewability
of individual patches.
With this commit, we do not look at 'fn_table' that records the postimage
of previous round when applying a patch to produce a new file out of an
existing file.
> How was this patch generated: with git itself?
Yes, the patch basically agrees with what I get by applying it and running
git format-patch -M -B HEAD^..HEAD
- [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c), (continued)
- [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c), Uwe Kleine-König, 2010/09/03
- [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c), Andreas Schwab, 2010/09/03
- [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c), Russell King - ARM Linux, 2010/09/03
- Re: [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c), Andreas Gruenbacher, 2010/09/04
- Re: [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c), Russell King - ARM Linux, 2010/09/04
- Re: [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c), Andreas Gruenbacher, 2010/09/04
- Re: [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c), Russell King - ARM Linux, 2010/09/04
- Re: [bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c), Andreas Gruenbacher, 2010/09/04
[bug-patch] Re: [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c), Matthieu Moy, 2010/09/03
Re: [bug-patch] [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c), Andreas Gruenbacher, 2010/09/03