On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 3:41 AM Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
As others have already stated, I might not be the one making the patch in the first place. Your position seems to be that ignoring any amount of context is bad, and I simply don't agree with that. If you can show me that it is causing an epidemic of broken patches to be applied erroneously, you might change my mind. Otherwise, please stop with the non-solutions you keep throwing at me.
