Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 03:17:25 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@bec.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] patch's default backup behavior Message-ID: <YlIwJWLuIQ6g6fp0@bec.de> In-Reply-To: <CACNAnaGTZSGKP=FKT1deAjJ0W=Q5Ezqf0ZinC2ydDzUksk%2BFtw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACNAnaGTZSGKP=FKT1deAjJ0W=Q5Ezqf0ZinC2ydDzUksk%2BFtw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 10:25:08PM -0500 schrieb Kyle Evans: > I'd like to test the waters on switching this to the GNU behavior, > which feels a whole lot more reasonable. Notably, they'll only create > backup files if a mismatch was detected (presumably this means either > a hunk needed fuzz or a hunk outright failed). This yields far fewer > backup files in the ideal scenario (context entirely matches), while > still leaving backup files when it's sensible (base file changed and > we might want to regenerate the patch). > > Thoughts / comments / concerns? Personally, I'm more often annoyed by the GNU behavior than not. Especially when working on pkgsrc, the GNU behavior of sometimes-not-creating-backups actually breaks tooling. I also consider the rationale somewhat fishy as tools like sed have historically not operated in-place. Joerg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YlIwJWLuIQ6g6fp0>