On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 8:12 AM Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 3:41 AM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 17:15 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:42 PM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 16:37 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:36 PM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Just like 'many of the proposals lately', developers are going to be > > > > > > the ones disabling it (because they don't care), and users will be > > > > > > the > > > > > > ones enabling it (because they do care), just to learn that > > > > > > developers > > > > > > don't care and go complaining to the mailing lists that users dare > > > > > > report issues they don't care about. > > > > > > > > > > I care if the patch is actually broken, which the warning doesn't > > > > > really tell me. It's just not a very reliable indicator, and will > > > > > produce false-positives frequently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can also take less context into the patch and use -F0. Then you'll > > > > have the same effect, no warnings to bother you and no pretending that > > > > the patch applies when it doesn't. > > > > > > That really doesn't help me. My point is that I don't want to touch > > > the patch unless it is actually necessary to do so. > > > > > > > Then make patches with -U0. > > As others have already stated, I might not be the one making the patch > in the first place. > > Your position seems to be that ignoring any amount of context is bad, > and I simply don't agree with that. If you can show me that it is > causing an epidemic of broken patches to be applied erroneously, you > might change my mind. Otherwise, please stop with the non-solutions > you keep throwing at me.
After giving it some further thought, I suppose I'm overreacting to this a bit. Most patches won't be affected by this anyway.