Re: git apply vs patch -p1

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: git apply vs patch -p1
Date: 2013-09-14 19:08:19
Message-ID: 20130914190819.GB2291@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2013-09-14 15:03:52 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 09/14/2013 02:37 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >Lately I've been running into a lot of reports of false conflicts
> >reported by "git apply". The most recent one was the "points" patch,
> >which git apply rejected for completely ficticious reasons (it claimed
> >that the patch was trying to create a new file where a file already
> >existed, which it wasn't).
> >
> >I think we should modify the patch review and developer instructions to
> >recommend always using patch -p1 (or -p0, depending), even if the patch
> >was produced with "git diff".
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
>
>
> FWIW that's what I invariably use.
>
> You do have to be careful to git-add/git-rm any added/deleted files, which
> git-apply does for you (as well as renames) - I've been caught by that a
> couple of times.

git reset?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2013-09-14 19:23:37 json docs fixup
Previous Message Marko Tiikkaja 2013-09-14 19:04:34 Re: Proposal: PL/PgSQL strict_mode