On 26.07.2013 23:11, Jan Beich wrote: > Pedro Giffuni writes: > >> Now, just some food for thought, but if you are unsure your patch >> applies cleanly, why would you choose to use the -s (silent) option? > Because by default patch(1) is overly verbose. At first, I'm only > interested if a patch applies cleanly, then what files fail to apply. > To fix the patch I just repeat over edit a hunk (or two) and confirm > patch(1) no longer rejects it. > > With -Cs giving up is easy at any time. One may not care about > a failed hunk in a man page or prefer to edit a patch as the whole > instead of on per-file (.rej file) basis. I would tend to do -Cs just to see if it applies cleanly or not and if there is a failure then do -C to see the failure. Actually I always use -C from the start. In any case, I find it reasonable to want to preserve the GNU patch behaviour. The code is rather simple so I would encourage other interested people to look at it, or I will look at it at a later time. Pedro.Received on Sat Jul 27 2013 - 12:50:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:39 UTC