[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug-patch] [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected wi

From: Jonathan Nieder
Subject: Re: [bug-patch] [BUG?] rename patch accepted with --dry-run, rejected without (Re: [PATCH V3] arm & sh: factorised duplicated clkdev.c)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 18:32:52 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:

> something pretty bizarre is going on here.  The wget output modifies the same 
> file twice, but both patches to this file have the same source sha1 (5645f35):

>From the git v1.6.0-rc0~92 changelog entry:

    apply: fix copy/rename breakage
    7ebd52a (Merge branch 'dz/apply-again', 2008-07-01) taught "git-apply" to
    grok a (non-git) patch that is a concatenation of separate patches that
    touch the same file number of times, by recording the postimage of patch
    application of previous round and using it as the preimage for later
    This "incremental" mode of patch application fundamentally contradicts
    with the way git rename/copy patches are designed.  When a git patch talks
    about a file A getting modified, and a new file B created out of A, like
        diff --git a/A b/A
        --- a/A
        +++ b/A
        ... change text here ...
        diff --git a/A b/B
        copy from A
        copy to B
        --- a/A
        +++ b/B
        ... change text here ...
    the second change to produce B does not depend on what is done to A with
    the first change in any way.  This is explicitly done so for reviewability
    of individual patches.
    With this commit, we do not look at 'fn_table' that records the postimage
    of previous round when applying a patch to produce a new file out of an
    existing file.

> How was this patch generated: with git itself?

Yes, the patch basically agrees with what I get by applying it and running

 git format-patch -M -B HEAD^..HEAD

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]