Nathan Collins writes:
>> What would you propose to make clickable in a renaming diff, though?
>
> Your 'Index' header looks good, and I would expect a renaming diff to
> have something like
>
> Index: foo -> bar
>
> as in 'git status',
Heh, please don't call "Index:" *mine* --- It is a CVS ab
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Nathan Collins wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Nathan Collins
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Nathan Collins writes:
>>
For (2), the solution may be to add a separate
'diff.add-clickable-paths' option (pr
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Nathan Collins wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Nathan Collins writes:
>
>>> For (2), the solution may be to add a separate
>>> 'diff.add-clickable-paths' option (probably there is a better name?
>>> 'diff.add-copyable-paths'? ...
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Nathan Collins writes:
>> For (2), the solution may be to add a separate
>> 'diff.add-clickable-paths' option (probably there is a better name?
>> 'diff.add-copyable-paths'? ...),...
>> ...
>> Concretely, if 'diff.add-clickable-paths' is s
Nathan Collins writes:
> More concretely, what I had in mind was that if 'diff.noprefix=true'
> is set in the user's config, and the patch is in '-p0' format, then
> Git could suggest to the user that the 'diff.noprefix' setting *might*
> be causing them to generate '-p0' patches. If the user had
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Nathan Collins writes:
>
>> But 'git apply' could be much more helpful than 'patch' even, since
>> the presence or absence of the 'a/' and 'b/' prefixes in the patch,
>> and the 'diff.noprefix' setting, give Git enough info to be very
>> hel
Nathan Collins writes:
> But 'git apply' could be much more helpful than 'patch' even, since
> the presence or absence of the 'a/' and 'b/' prefixes in the patch,
> and the 'diff.noprefix' setting, give Git enough info to be very
> helpful to the user.
The prefix would be unreliable as the gener
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Nathan Collins writes:
>
>> Hmmm. Maybe a warning that the patch is expected to be in '-p1'
>> format, and that setting 'diff.noprefix=true' makes some commands
>> generate '-p0' patches?
>
> "some"? Do you have exceptions in mind?
As Jon
Nathan Collins writes:
> Hmmm. Maybe a warning that the patch is expected to be in '-p1'
> format, and that setting 'diff.noprefix=true' makes some commands
> generate '-p0' patches?
"some"? Do you have exceptions in mind?
> But I worry this would just confuse / distract
> the people that don'
Nathan Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Nathan Collins wrote:
>>> git show | git apply --reverse
>>
>> The following which only uses plumbing commands should work:
>>
>> git diff-tree -p HEAD^! |
>> git apply --reverse
>
> Nice! However,
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Nathan Collins wrote:
>
>> Patches created with 'diff.noprefix=true' don't 'git apply' without
>> specifying '-p0'.
>>
>> I'm not sure this is a bug -- the 'man git-apply' just says "Reads the
>> supplied diff output (i.e. "a patch"
Hi,
Nathan Collins wrote:
> Patches created with 'diff.noprefix=true' don't 'git apply' without
> specifying '-p0'.
>
> I'm not sure this is a bug -- the 'man git-apply' just says "Reads the
> supplied diff output (i.e. "a patch") and applies it to files" -- but
> I would expect patches I create
Bug?
Patches created with 'diff.noprefix=true' don't 'git apply' without
specifying '-p0'.
I'm not sure this is a bug -- the 'man git-apply' just says "Reads the
supplied diff output (i.e. "a patch") and applies it to files
13 matches
Mail list logo
