Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 09:43:41 -0500 From: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> To: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] patch's default backup behavior Message-ID: <CACNAnaHzTVA-S9dZJN48YO2RhJ5hDuK=eqUFakptjwRKNXD3%2BA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <YlIwJWLuIQ6g6fp0@bec.de> References: <CACNAnaGTZSGKP=FKT1deAjJ0W=Q5Ezqf0ZinC2ydDzUksk%2BFtw@mail.gmail.com> <YlIwJWLuIQ6g6fp0@bec.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 8:17 PM Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@bec.de> wrote: > > 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. > To be clear, when you say 'tooling' here, are you referring to pkgsrc tooling or random third-party tooling being used as, e.g., build dependencies?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACNAnaHzTVA-S9dZJN48YO2RhJ5hDuK=eqUFakptjwRKNXD3%2BA>