On 2013-09-16 10:16:37 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote: > > > On 2013-09-14 15:03:52 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > > On 09/14/2013 02:37 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > >Folks, > > > > > > > >Lately I've been running into a lot of reports of false conflicts > > > >reported by "git apply". The most recent one was the "points" patch, > > > >which git apply rejected for completely ficticious reasons (it claimed > > > >that the patch was trying to create a new file where a file already > > > >existed, which it wasn't). > > > > > > > >I think we should modify the patch review and developer instructions to > > > >recommend always using patch -p1 (or -p0, depending), even if the patch > > > >was produced with "git diff". > > > > > > > >Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > FWIW that's what I invariably use. > > > > > > You do have to be careful to git-add/git-rm any added/deleted files, > > which > > > git-apply does for you (as well as renames) - I've been caught by that a > > > couple of times. > > > > git reset? > > > > > git reset wouldn't remove the files that were newly added by the patch, > would it?
Depends on how you do it. I simply commit patches I look at - then they can easily be removed using git reset --hard HEAD^. And it allows to make further changes/annotations during review that are clearly separated from the patch. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
