Stefan Beller sbel...@google.com writes:
In the hunk header we can learn about the
expected lines to read for this hunk and after the hunk we only have
3 possible lines:
* it's the next hunk, then the line starts with @@
This is true.
* it's a new file, so the line starts with diff
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Eric Sunshine sunsh...@sunshineco.com writes:
s/enw/new/
Heh, thanks; I wasn't planning to commit this one yet, but why not.
Here is with an updated log message and a test.
-- 8 --
Subject: [PATCH] apply: reject a
Hi Greg,
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 09:17:59AM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
Hi all,
I received the patch attached below as part of a submission against the
Linux kernel tree. The patch seems to have been hand-edited, and is not
Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org writes:
But, there's nothing in the patch at all except the commit message:
$ git show HEAD
...
Any ideas what is going on here? Shouldn't 'git am' have failed?
Yes. The patch reads like this:
---
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Subject: apply: reject a hunk that does not do anything
A hunk like this in a hand-edited patch without correctly adjusting
the line counts:
@@ -660,2 +660,2 @@ inline struct sk_buff *ieee80211_authentic...
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
It claims that it has only 2 lines in the hunk, so git apply
parses the hunk that begins at line 660 as such:
@@ -660,2 +660,2 @@ inline struct sk_buff *ieee80211_authentic...
auth = (struct ieee80211_authentication *)
Eric Sunshine sunsh...@sunshineco.com writes:
s/enw/new/
Heh, thanks; I wasn't planning to commit this one yet, but why not.
Here is with an updated log message and a test.
-- 8 --
Subject: [PATCH] apply: reject a hunk that does not do anything
A hunk like this in a hand-edited patch without
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 01:23:26PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Eric Sunshine sunsh...@sunshineco.com writes:
s/enw/new/
Heh, thanks; I wasn't planning to commit this one yet, but why not.
Well, it's not good to apply a commit with no actual commit. That
never a good thing, and was the
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 09:17:59AM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
Hi all,
I received the patch attached below as part of a submission against the
Linux kernel tree. The patch seems to have been hand-edited, and is not
correct, and patch verifies this as being a problem:
$ patch -p1 --dry-run
Hi all,
I received the patch attached below as part of a submission against the
Linux kernel tree. The patch seems to have been hand-edited, and is not
correct, and patch verifies this as being a problem:
$ patch -p1 --dry-run bad_patch.mbox
checking file
10 matches
Mail list logo
