Hi Ivan.
>>> I like to build kernels with a bunch of patches on top to test
>>> new stuff. The problem is that it takes a lot of effort to fix
>>> all the failed hunks during patching that really wouldn't have
>>> to be failed if only patch was a little more inteligent and
>>> could merge
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Ivan Vadovic wrote:
> > > I like to build kernels with a bunch of patches on top to test
> > > new stuff. The problem is that it takes a lot of effort to fix
> > > all the failed hunks during patching that really wouldn't have
> > > to be failed if only patch was a little
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Ivan Vadovic wrote:
I like to build kernels with a bunch of patches on top to test
new stuff. The problem is that it takes a lot of effort to fix
all the failed hunks during patching that really wouldn't have
to be failed if only patch was a little more
Ivan Vadovic writes:
> Well, are there any utilities to merge diffs? I couldn't find any on freshmeat.
> So what are you using to stack many patches onto the kernel tree? Just manualy
> modify the diff? I'll try to write something more automatic if nothing comes up.
Try dirdiff -
At 2:34 AM +0200 2001-06-18, Ivan Vadovic wrote:
>Very often the case is that they indeed can be merged automagically.
>For example two patches inserting few lines right after the #include
>lines.
>
>patch1:
>@@ 10,1 10,2 @@
> #include
>+#include <1.h>
>
>patch2:
>@@ 10,1 10,2 @@
> #include
> > I like to build kernels with a bunch of patches on top to test
> > new stuff. The problem is that it takes a lot of effort to fix
> > all the failed hunks during patching that really wouldn't have
> > to be failed if only patch was a little more inteligent and
> > could merge several
Hi Ivan.
> I like to build kernels with a bunch of patches on top to test
> new stuff. The problem is that it takes a lot of effort to fix
> all the failed hunks during patching that really wouldn't have
> to be failed if only patch was a little more inteligent and
> could merge several
Hi,
I like to build kernels with a bunch of patches on top to test new stuff. The
problem is that it takes a lot of effort to fix all the failed hunks during
patching that really wouldn't have to be failed if only patch was a little more
inteligent and could merge several patches into one ( if
Hi,
I like to build kernels with a bunch of patches on top to test new stuff. The
problem is that it takes a lot of effort to fix all the failed hunks during
patching that really wouldn't have to be failed if only patch was a little more
inteligent and could merge several patches into one ( if
Hi Ivan.
I like to build kernels with a bunch of patches on top to test
new stuff. The problem is that it takes a lot of effort to fix
all the failed hunks during patching that really wouldn't have
to be failed if only patch was a little more inteligent and
could merge several patches
I like to build kernels with a bunch of patches on top to test
new stuff. The problem is that it takes a lot of effort to fix
all the failed hunks during patching that really wouldn't have
to be failed if only patch was a little more inteligent and
could merge several patches into
At 2:34 AM +0200 2001-06-18, Ivan Vadovic wrote:
Very often the case is that they indeed can be merged automagically.
For example two patches inserting few lines right after the #include
lines.
patch1:
@@ 10,1 10,2 @@
#include foo.h
+#include 1.h
patch2:
@@ 10,1 10,2 @@
#include foo.h
Ivan Vadovic writes:
Well, are there any utilities to merge diffs? I couldn't find any on freshmeat.
So what are you using to stack many patches onto the kernel tree? Just manualy
modify the diff? I'll try to write something more automatic if nothing comes up.
Try dirdiff -
13 matches
Mail list logo
