On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 17:15 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:42 PM Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 16:37 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:36 PM Michał Górny <[email protected]> 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. > > That really doesn't help me. My point is that I don't want to touch > the patch unless it is actually necessary to do so. >
Then make patches with -U0. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
