From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Mon Jul 3 18:17:28 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17269EC8C0; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:17:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:6074::16:84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 919A07AA62; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:17:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id D411210795; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:17:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:17:27 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Pedro Giffuni Cc: cem@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers Subject: Re: svn commit: r320579 - head/usr.bin/patch Message-ID: <20170703181727.GA99316@FreeBSD.org> References: <201707022100.v62L0Ume001253@repo.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18) X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 18:17:28 -0000 On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 10:42:15AM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > On 07/02/17 21:53, Conrad Meyer wrote: > > Does this change the behavior of 'patch -p1' (for example) with 'git > > diff' generated diffs? So patches that could be applied with -p1 > > before now need to be applied with -p0? Or is this a different mode > > of patch? > > IMHO, the (new) BSD patch behavior is somewhat more natural in the sense > that no one asked git to add a prefix to the path so it makes sense to > ignore it. But -p1 already solves the problem; why add any ad-hoc handling to some particular program that tends to generate patches whatever the way it does? ./danfe