Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>> This is _NOT_ fine, especially if you suggest "patch" the user may
>>>> not have, and more importantly does not have a clue why "git apply"
>>>> rejected it ("am" does _not_ use "patch" at all).
>>>
>>> I'm not 100% sure I'm following what part here is not OK. If you
>>> can help me understand that, I'll respin the change accordingly.
>>
>> Do not ever mention "patch -p1". It is not the command that "git
>> am" uses, and it is not what detected the breakage in the patch.
>
> This may be true, but it _is_ the command that I (and others) have
> defaulted to using, if for no other reason than ignorance.
>>
>> The command to guide the user to is "git apply".
>
> OK. But I don't see a "--dry-run" equivalent -- and "git apply --check"
> just gives me a repeat of the same fail messages that "git am" did.
>
> With "patch -p1 --dry-run" I get information that immediately
> lets me see whether the patch is viable or not.
What do you mean by "viable"?
Independent from the answer to that question...
Running "git apply -p1" would by definition give you the same
failure without --dry-run (because you know it already failed), no?
Then you could ask for rejects or attempt to apply with reduced
contexts to "git apply" all without having to say --dry-run, as
unapplicable change will not be applied.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html