On 09/06/2013 05:27 PM, Andreas Grünbacher wrote: > Pádraig, > > 2013/9/5 Pádraig Brady <[email protected]>: >> The attached patch is a bit mangled and needs the following >> adjustment to apply cleanly: >> >> -@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ >> +@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > > that, and it's missing a space in line 9 as well.
I didn't mention that as it's inconsequential >> So with patch < 2.6, the behavior is OK, as the ignored hunk >> is diagnosed in messages and exit code. >> >> However with patch >= 2.6 the ignored hunk is not diagnosed! >> This results with default options in silent failures. > > Patch doesn't recognize the hunk in this case, it treats everything > after line 8 of tempname.diff as garbage. The parser either requires > an explicit file name or a patch header (the --- and +++ lines in > unified format) followed by a number of valid hunks; everything else > is treated as "garbage". Even if it's another hunk in the same file? > It's not so hard to make patch recognize such hunks again, but > then it will more easily misinterpret other text as part of a patch -- > it's not so clear that things would improve. OK I understand the tradeoffs, but in this case it's very surprising that patch ignores the hunk marker on line 9 > How did you end up with the broken patch? Editing by hand, right? I didn't do it myself, but I presume it was hand editing. thanks, Pádraig.
