Re: [HACKERS] git apply vs patch -p1
On 2013-09-16 10:16:37 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote: 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
Re: [HACKERS] git apply vs patch -p1
Josh == Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: Josh The issue isn't that, it's that git apply is just buggy and Josh can't tell the difference between a new file and a modified Josh one. It's not the fault of git apply; the patch contained explicit annotations on all the files claiming that they were new. Both the patches I've looked at so far (picksplit NaNs and enable_material) had the same defect. The question is, how are these submitters preparing their patches? -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] git apply vs patch -p1
On 09/15/2013 11:46 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote: git reset? git reset wouldn't remove the files that were newly added by the patch, would it? The issue isn't that, it's that git apply is just buggy and can't tell the difference between a new file and a modified one. The points patch contained no new files, just modifications. But for some reason, git apply read it as being all new files, which failed. patch -p1 worked fine. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] git apply vs patch -p1
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk wrote: Josh == Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: Josh The issue isn't that, it's that git apply is just buggy and Josh can't tell the difference between a new file and a modified Josh one. It's not the fault of git apply; the patch contained explicit annotations on all the files claiming that they were new. Both the patches I've looked at so far (picksplit NaNs and enable_material) had the same defect. The question is, how are these submitters preparing their patches? I used git diff configured to use src/tools/git-external-diff, as described here: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Working_with_Git The resulting patch applies fine with patch, but not with git apply. If I instead generate a patch with git diff --no-ext-diff, then it applies with git apply. Cheers, Jeff
Re: [HACKERS] git apply vs patch -p1
Jeff == Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes: Jeff I used git diff configured to use Jeff src/tools/git-external-diff, as described here: hmm... so that git-external-diff script is trying to fake git diff output, including using 'diff -git' and index lines, but the context-diff output wouldn't work with git apply even if the header lines were correct (as far as I can see git apply accepts only git's unified-diff format - the git people clearly have no truck with context diffs). -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] git apply vs patch -p1
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote: 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? 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 -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
Re: [HACKERS] git apply vs patch -p1
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. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] git apply vs patch -p1
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? 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
Re: [HACKERS] git apply vs patch -p1
On 09/14/2013 03:08 PM, Andres Freund 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? Yes, of course you can roll back as long as you haven't published your commits. But it's a nuisance. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] git apply vs patch -p1
On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 11:37 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: 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) Every file in that patch contains new file mode 100644 which means it is creating a new file. I would review how that patch was created. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
