On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 21:32:35 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>> The Question was: is there any case where _proper_ patch can do any
>> damage applied this way?
>
> Yes, if the offsets didn't change -F 0 wouldn't help at all.
...
--
Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...and I don't argue with that from the very beginning. But it's the
> patch what is broken during dumb update (which can happen even without
> -l) thus I've suggested adding '-F 0' which enforces more checking, so
> that prob
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 19:23:40 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> No, you don't get it.
I do get it...
> foo1 is code from project X version Y.
[...]
> Now the project X releases version Z, including foo2 (with the same
[...]
> PLD applies the former patch and gets no error. Or even decides to
[.
2008/11/5 Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I mean the patch is completely broken - see attached result of
> diff -u foo1.py foo2.py
> It's entirely different from foo.patch you have send, isn't it?
> Now apply my patch with or without -l and compare result. It's not the
> case we're talking about
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 18:26:11 +0100, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> What about ignoring whitespaces in patches to code in Whitespace
> language? ;>
Nothing, as I'm suggesting 'patch -l' not 'diff -wB' (and patrys
apparently doesn't understand difference between creating patch and
using it).
--
Tomasz
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 17:47:04 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>> It's the _patch_ that's broken, not patching with -l.
>
> How is that patch broken? You mean the offset? Just add one line to
I mean the patch is completely broken - see attached result of
diff -u foo1.py foo2.py
It's entirely dif
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 05:47:04PM +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:04:40 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
[...]
> >> patch -p0 -l < foo.patch
> >>
> >> to break the code instead of failing.
> > Oh, br
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:04:40 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>> foo1.py is the original, foo.patch is the patch against that (altered
>> to mention foo2.py for easy testing). foo2.py is the new file. Run:
> It's the _patch_
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:04:40 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>>> been there,
>>> done that. It breaks Python.
>> Please attach testcase (original and modified file).
>
> foo1.py is the original, foo.patch is the patch against that (altered
> to mention foo2.py for easy testing). foo2.py is the
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 22:13:29 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>> been there,
>> done that. It breaks Python.
> Please attach testcase (original and modified file).
foo1.py is the original, foo.patch is the patch against that
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 22:13:29 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>> it's for _matching_ only, not patching itself.
>
> Now in real life imagine this:
>
> if foo:
> if bar:
> asd()
> fgh()
>
> gets changed to:
>
> if foo:
> if bar:
> if asd():
> fgh()
>
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 14:10:07 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>>> Maybe it's better idea to add -l (--ignore-whitespace) to %__patch?
>> Especially for Python ;)
> man patch
>
> it's for _matching_ only, not patching itself.
> and asking again, how the F*K you're supposed to remove the -kb???
Same way you are adding it? I mean, cvs remove it and then cvs add it
again w/o -kb. And yes, you can add -kb without removing the file (via
cvs admin), but _it won't work_ as CR/LF will still be blindly translated.
> until no
> no diffs, no view as text...
Only in new cvsweb that was forced some time ago. Good old one works
just fine:
http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/test/kdeaddons-babelfish-google.patch?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
M.
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@li
On Monday 03 November 2008 21:32:41 Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On Monday 03 November 2008 12:38:31 Marcin Krol wrote:
> > > this will make cvsweb unable to provide diffs between versions,
> >
> > Diffs works just fine with this change on both old and new cvsweb.
>
> for non-binary files - yes (presumea
On Monday 03 November 2008 12:38:31 Marcin Krol wrote:
> > this will make cvsweb unable to provide diffs between versions,
>
> Diffs works just fine with this change on both old and new cvsweb.
for non-binary files - yes (presumeably you looked older patch files)
for binary (cvs admin -kb) - no
cv
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 15:07:20 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>> doesn't this create some unwanted changes that doesn't even think can came
>> out?
>
> It breaks Python where whitespace is crucial.
Prove it;)
--
Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
p
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 15:41:05 +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>> Nope - this makes sending our patches upstream harder.
> sending upstream is always problematic...
But it's easier to send link to webcvs with comments, history etc.
> and if we're not talking about c-sources, then i don't like to s
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 14:10:07 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>> Maybe it's better idea to add -l (--ignore-whitespace) to %__patch?
>
> Especially for Python ;)
man patch
it's for _matching_ only, not patching itself.
--
Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
__
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Elan Ruusamäe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 03 November 2008 14:29:36 Tomasz Pala wrote:
>> Maybe it's better idea to add -l (--ignore-whitespace) to %__patch?
> doesn't this create some unwanted changes that doesn't even think can came
> out?
It breaks Pyt
On Monday 03 November 2008 14:29:36 Tomasz Pala wrote:
> > however, we shouldn't add msdos files to cvs, undos the sources before
> > patching instead is better solution.
>
> Nope - this makes sending our patches upstream harder.
sending upstream is always problematic...
and if we're not talking a
On Monday 03 November 2008 12:38:31 Marcin Krol wrote:
> > however, we shouldn't add msdos files to cvs, undos the sources before
> > patching instead is better solution.
>
> No no no. I don't want to see dos2unix going automagically on all and
> every sources. We must be able add any type of file
2008/11/3 Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Maybe it's better idea to add -l (--ignore-whitespace) to %__patch?
Especially for Python ;)
--
Patryk Zawadzki
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailm
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 01:56:40 +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> this will make cvsweb unable to provide diffs between versions, find real
> solution please!
Fixing CVS server is the only one.
> however, we shouldn't add msdos files to cvs, undos the sources before
> patching instead is better s
> this will make cvsweb unable to provide diffs between versions,
Diffs works just fine with this change on both old and new cvsweb.
> however, we shouldn't add msdos files to cvs, undos the sources before
> patching instead is better solution.
No no no. I don't want to see dos2unix going autom
On Sunday 02 November 2008 01:55, arekm wrote:
> Author: arekmDate: Sat Nov 1 23:55:01 2008 GMT
> Module: CVSROOT Tag: HEAD
> Log message:
> - treat patches as binary files
emmm
this will make cvsweb unable to provide diffs between versions,
26 matches
Mail list logo
