On 13-08-20 03:54 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 12:45:03 -0700
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Steven Rostedt writes:
>>
I do not think it is necessarily a good idea to assume that people
who are learning "git apply" know how GNU patch works.
>>>
>>> Linus told me that "
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:43:56 -0700
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> But only folks in the kernel circle will be told by Linus the
> similarity between apply and patch, no?
Well, there was a time when Linus was making his rounds showcasing git
more than Linux, to people that were not kernel developers.
Steven Rostedt writes:
>> > Linus told me that "git apply" was basically a replacement for patch.
>> > Why would you think it would not be a good idea to assume that people
>> > would not be familiar with how GNU patch works?
>>
>> The audience of Git these days are far more widely spread than t
Paul Gortmaker writes:
>> Looks good to me. Paul, what do you think?
>
> Yep, I'll write something up tomorrow which loosely matches the above.
Thanks.
--
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
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 12:45:03 -0700
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Steven Rostedt writes:
>
> >> I do not think it is necessarily a good idea to assume that people
> >> who are learning "git apply" know how GNU patch works.
> >
> > Linus told me that "git apply" was basically a replacement for patch.
>
Steven Rostedt writes:
>> I do not think it is necessarily a good idea to assume that people
>> who are learning "git apply" know how GNU patch works.
>
> Linus told me that "git apply" was basically a replacement for patch.
> Why would you think it would not be a good idea to assume that people
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 12:07:18 -0700
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Paul Gortmaker writes:
>
> > OK, so given your feedback, how do you feel about a patch to the
> > documentation that indicates to use "-v" in combination with the
> > "--check" to get equivalent "patch --dry-run" behaviour? If that
>
On 13-08-20 02:51 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>
>> OK, so given your feedback, how do you feel about a patch to the
>> documentation that indicates to use "-v" in combination with the
>> "--check" to get equivalent "patch --dry-run" behaviour?
>
> Sounds like
Paul Gortmaker writes:
> OK, so given your feedback, how do you feel about a patch to the
> documentation that indicates to use "-v" in combination with the
> "--check" to get equivalent "patch --dry-run" behaviour? If that
> had existed, I'd have not gone rummaging around in the source, so
> t
Hi Paul,
Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> OK, so given your feedback, how do you feel about a patch to the
> documentation that indicates to use "-v" in combination with the
> "--check" to get equivalent "patch --dry-run" behaviour?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
I assume you mean a note in the OPTIONS
On 13-08-20 01:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Paul Gortmaker writes:
>
>> TL;DR -- "git apply --reject" implies verbose, but the similar
>> "git apply --check" does not, which seems inconsistent.
>
> Hmmm, I am of two minds. From purely idealistic point of view, I
> can see why defaulting both
Paul Gortmaker writes:
> TL;DR -- "git apply --reject" implies verbose, but the similar
> "git apply --check" does not, which seems inconsistent.
Hmmm, I am of two minds. From purely idealistic point of view, I
can see why defaulting both to non-verbose may look a more
attractive way to go, but
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 ap
13 matches
Mail list logo
