From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 27 04:12:12 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F1377B; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 04:12:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@tormail.org) Received: from outgoing.tormail.org (outgoing.tormail.org [82.221.96.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0D3925D5; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 04:12:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=internal.tormail.org) by outgoing.tormail.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1V2vrU-0002f7-Jo; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:12:09 +0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tormail.org; s=tm; h=Message-Id:Date:X-TorMail-User:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=sGl6HP6GNE8Afwawg9HnJWe+KxdCvICD8B0lh201Gg0=; b=ItRP6u2vCVaptWvW4fbhml3UqA3OqR/3Hcf5sjq6TZu1sHi0VccbRuvhF/ebMtyYOjG9IqeWSpWDFZBEBgQKxdSpD4JhzFX428nu8ykt6O8/KAvN3YOs6ahY8pllW5rTPZ4NFPdxvIFTNmtwmuXFcBzmCW8Hzux457uyxZdd1oE=; Received: from jbeich by internal.tormail.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1V2vqT-000JNd-DJ; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 04:11:06 +0000 From: Jan Beich To: Pedro Giffuni Subject: Re: [Heads up] BSD-licensed patch becoming the default RSN. In-Reply-To: <51F32288.7050701@FreeBSD.org> (Pedro Giffuni's message of "Fri, 26 Jul 2013 20:29:44 -0500") References: <51F2E627.9090907@FreeBSD.org> <1V2ssp-000Nrk-Q8@internal.tormail.org> <51F32288.7050701@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TorMail-User: jbeich Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 04:11:06 +0000 Message-Id: <1V2vqT-000JNd-DJ@internal.tormail.org> Cc: FreeBSD Current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 04:12:12 -0000 Pedro Giffuni writes: > Now, just some food for thought, but if you are unsure your patch > applies cleanly, why would you choose to use the -s (silent) option? Because by default patch(1) is overly verbose. At first, I'm only interested if a patch applies cleanly, then what files fail to apply. To fix the patch I just repeat over edit a hunk (or two) and confirm patch(1) no longer rejects it. With -Cs giving up is easy at any time. One may not care about a failed hunk in a man page or prefer to edit a patch as the whole instead of on per-file (.rej file) basis. > It would seem to me that some people may want the -s option to be > truly silent (those paths may be long) and since those .rej files are > not > really being created it is consistent not to list them. If you need -s to be truly silent then you're probably writing a script. At which point -C being a BSD extension and -s behaving differently from GNU patch would make more pain than not using them. A new option may be better e.g., -q, --quiet Do not write anything to standard output. Exit immediately with non-zero status if any hunk fails to apply.