Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortma...@windriver.com> writes:

> On 12-07-12 01:45 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortma...@windriver.com> writes:
>> 
>>> If git am wasn't run with --reject, we assume the end user
>>> knows where to find the patch.  This is normally true for
>>> a single patch,
>> 
>> Not at all.  Whether it is a single or broken, the patch is fed to
>> underlying "apply" from an unadvertised place.
>
> What I meant by this was the difference between:
>
>       git am 0001-some-standalone-single.patch
> vs.
>       git am mbox
>
> In the 1st, the standalone patch is 100% clear and easy to access,
> because we really don't need/care about the unadvertised place.

It does not matter at all that 0001-foo.patch only has a single
patch.  If you are going to fix up the patch after you saw "git am"
failed, you will be fixing .git/rebase-apply/patch with your editor
and re-run "git am" without arguments, at which point "git am" will
not look at your 0001-foo.patch file at all.

>> This is _NOT_ fine, especially if you suggest "patch" the user may
>> not have, and more importantly does not have a clue why "git apply"
>> rejected it ("am" does _not_ use "patch" at all).
>
> I'm not 100% sure I'm following what part here is not OK.  If you
> can help me understand that, I'll respin the change accordingly.

Do not ever mention "patch -p1".  It is not the command that "git
am" uses, and it is not what detected the breakage in the patch.

The command to guide the user to is "git apply".
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to