Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:48:03 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: Jan Beich <jbeich@tormail.org> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [Heads up] BSD-licensed patch becoming the default RSN. Message-ID: <51F3DDA3.8010606@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1V2vqT-000JNd-DJ@internal.tormail.org> References: <51F2E627.9090907@FreeBSD.org> <1V2ssp-000Nrk-Q8@internal.tormail.org> <51F32288.7050701@FreeBSD.org> <1V2vqT-000JNd-DJ@internal.tormail.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26.07.2013 23:11, Jan Beich wrote: > 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. I would tend to do -Cs just to see if it applies cleanly or not and if there is a failure then do -C to see the failure. Actually I always use -C from the start. In any case, I find it reasonable to want to preserve the GNU patch behaviour. The code is rather simple so I would encourage other interested people to look at it, or I will look at it at a later time. Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51F3DDA3.8010606>