On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 21:56 +0000, Michael 'veremitz' Everitt wrote: > On 13/12/19 21:42, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 16:37 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:36 PM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > Just like 'many of the proposals lately', developers are going to be > > > > the ones disabling it (because they don't care), and users will be the > > > > ones enabling it (because they do care), just to learn that developers > > > > don't care and go complaining to the mailing lists that users dare > > > > report issues they don't care about. > > > I care if the patch is actually broken, which the warning doesn't > > > really tell me. It's just not a very reliable indicator, and will > > > produce false-positives frequently. > > > > > You can also take less context into the patch and use -F0. Then you'll > > have the same effect, no warnings to bother you and no pretending that > > the patch applies when it doesn't. > > > Is there any mileage in having a similar scheme to which we already apply > '-p' increments to the -F variable? > eg. > 1) attempt patch with -F0 > 2) if (1) fails, attempt with -F2/3 & display 'yellow' warning & QA notice
That is precisely what my patch does and what people are complaining about. > 3) if (2) fails, attempt with, say, -F10 & display big fat 'red' warning > and QA notice That makes no sense as it exceeds context provided in most patches. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
