TL;DR -- "git apply --reject" implies verbose, but the similar
"git apply --check" does not, which seems inconsistent.
Background: A common (non-git) workflow can be to use "patch --dry-run"
to inspect whether a patch is feasible, and then use patch again
a 2nd time (w/o --dry-run) to actually apply it (and then work
through the rejects).
You can also do the above in a git repo, but you lose out because
"patch" doesn't (yet) capture the patched function names in the
rejected hunks, making it hard to double check your work.
My initial thought was to replace the above two steps with
"git apply --check ..." and then "git apply --reject ..." so
that I could just abandon using patch altogether.
That works great, with just one snag that had me go reading the
source. It seems that "git apply --reject" is verbose, and kind
of looks like the identical output I'd get if I used patch. But
"git apply --check" is quite reserved in its output and doesn't
look at all like "patch --dry-run". I initially believed that
"--check" was stopping at the 1st failure, based on the output.
Only when I read the source did I realize it was checking all the
hunks silently, and adding a "-v" would make it similar to the
output from "patch --dry-run".
Not a critical issue by any means, but having the "-v" implied
by "--check" (or perhaps having both default to non-verbose?)
might save other users from getting confused in the same way.
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