Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 20:42:55 +0200: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 04:51:15PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > s...@apache.org wrote on Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:05:15 -0000: > > > Author: stsp > > > Date: Wed Sep 15 10:05:14 2010 > > > New Revision: 997249 > > > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=997249&view=rev > > > Log: > > > Add an --old-patch-target-names option to svn patch. > > > This option is useful in two cases: > > > > > > 1) A patch contains names like > > > --- foo.c > > > +++ foo.c.new > > > and should be applied to foo.c. > > > > > > 2) A patch contains names like > > > --- foo.c.orig > > > +++ foo.c > > > and should be applied in reverse to foo.c, e.g. to undo prior > > > application > > > of the patch. > > > > What happens if a user forgets to supply the new option? (Does svn > > complain that 'foo.c.new is nonexistent/unversioned'?) > > $ svn patch test.diff > Skipped missing target: 'foo.new' > Summary of conflicts: > Skipped paths: 1
Okay. So it always uses the /^+++/ path. Pro: simple and predictable, con: sometimes it's possible to guess the correct path via other means (the Index: line, or extension stripping, etc; see the other thread). > > > For case (2): suppose I have such a patch (was emailed to me). I > > applied it using 'svn patch $patchfile'. Now I want to unapply it; so > > so I use 'svn patch --rd $patchfile' or 'svn patch --rd --optn $patchfile'? > > > > AIUI, currently only the latter will work? > > Which one works depends on the way path names appear in the patch. > > Say you have a diff produced with svn diff. > That will work with either combination of options. > > $ svn diff > Index: alpha > =================================================================== > --- alpha (revision 2) > +++ alpha (working copy) > @@ -1 +1,2 @@ > alpha > +aaa > > You need the new option only to handle cases where people used e.g. the > UNIX diff tool to create a patch using left/right names they made up > while producing the diff. > > > Is the UI "'svn patch' always uses the filename in the /^+++/ line"? > > Yes. By default, that's the name that is used. > > If you reverse the diff, the filenames get swapped as well. > So if you use the --optn option, the filenames get swapped again, or not at > all, depending which way you look at it :) > My point was that I think --rd shouldn't swap the filenames. > This UI may not be ideal, and I'm open for suggestions on how we could > improve it. Maybe there's a way to handle this without user interaction, > or a better name for the new option? > > The UNIX patch tool prompts for a filename when it cannot find a target. > We could do the same, defining yet another prompt callback type. > > But I don't like the fact that UNIX patch does not do tab-completion in its > prompt. I think the lack of tab-completion really affects usability. > So if svn had a prompt for this, I'd like it to support tab-completion. > Tab completion? Can we do that using APR or similar? > So the new --optn option is an easier way to implement this. > Maybe it's sufficient? Note that having the option around doesn't hurt > even if we decide to implement prompting later. Devil's advocate: It's a very narrow-scoped option, and might become obsolete if we extend this part of the code a bit. > > Stefan
