Paul Gortmaker <> writes:

> On 12-07-12 01:45 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Paul Gortmaker <> 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
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to