Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> But I have to wonder if it breaks the support for (arguably outside >> the Git usecase) input that has more than one patch that touches the >> same path to blindly reverse the order of all patches > > Sorry for getting back to this so late. > > The only other case I can think of (besides symlink<->file) is > directory<->file, and even in that case, I think blindly reversing the > order still works. > > If a more sophisticated rearrangement was needed, I would think that > even applying the patches in the forward direction (that is, without > "-R") wouldn't work, since Git is sensitive to the order of the patches. > So I don't think we need to support such input (since they wouldn't work > in the forward direction anyway). I wish you told that to those who added fn_table kludge to apply.c back when they did so. They apparently wanted to have a patch that has more than one "diff --git a/hello.c b/hello.c" that talks about the same file applied with a single invocation of "git apply". Perhaps what they did is already broken with "apply -R", and blind reversal of everything magically makes it work? Or what they did already works with "apply -R" and your blind reversal would break, unless you undo what they did? >> (instead of >> the obvious implementation of the fix for the above stated problem >> --- i.e. make sure the first patch is a deletion of a symlink and >> what immediately follows is a creation of a regular file, and swap >> them only in such a case). > > This would make patch application more robust, but I still appreciate > the relative simplicity of the existing approach I'd rather want to see that we keep the normal cases simple, i.e. majority parts of a patch with "apply -R" that did *not* have to futz with the application order will keep what we do, and if there are tricky cases like typechange diff, only special case them. Thanks.
