I took a look at the 14.patch file in JIRA; the last hunk for ivy/common-configurations.xml ends in "\ No newline at end of file", and I think that's what is screwing it up (since that immediately precedes ivysettings.xml). If I delete that line, the patch applies (although it causes a reject for common-configurations.xml).
So perhaps there's a bug with arc's diff options used to produce the patch file in the first place...seems like that should be something easy to reproduce and track down (by editing the end of a file which currently is missing a trailing newline). JVS On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Carl Steinbach <c...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi John, > >> For HIVE-2646: the diagnostics aren't great, but I think it's just >> choking on a patch that needs to be rebased, since as Kevin says, if I >> download the latest .patch from JIRA and apply that with patch -p0, I >> get the correct failure message. So just ask the author to rebase >> again? > > > I updated my local arcanist and libphutil repos and then tried applying the > patch for HIVE-2646 using the command 'arc patch --revision 2133'. This > works. > > However, when I download the patch for HIVE-2646 and manually apply it, I > get the following error: > > % wget > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12522177/HIVE-2646.D2133.14.patch > % patch -p0 < HIVE-2646.D2133.14.patch > patching file build-common.xml > patching file build.properties > patching file build.xml > patching file builtins/build.xml > patching file builtins/ivy.xml > patching file cli/ivy.xml > patching file common/ivy.xml > patching file contrib/build.xml > patching file contrib/ivy.xml > patching file hbase-handler/build.xml > patching file hbase-handler/ivy.xml > patching file hwi/build.xml > patching file hwi/ivy.xml > patching file ivy/common-configurations.xml > patch: **** malformed patch at line 622: Index: ivy/ivysettings.xml > > Other people have complained about problems encountered while manually > applying Phabricator diffs, and the response has always been that the patch > needs to be rebased. However, I think this example indicates that there's > actually some other problem here. > > Thanks. > > Carl
