> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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? > > ;-) It turns out that it was the former. > > Without your "blindly reverse everything" patch, the attached patch > illustrates how the "touch the same path more than once" support > introduced in 7a07841c (git-apply: handle a patch that touches the > same path more than once better, 2008-06-27) is broken with respect > to "apply -R". Ah, thanks for checking. > So, you should be able to sell the change to fix _two_ bugs ;-) > > Thanks. > > diff --git a/t/t4127-apply-same-fn.sh b/t/t4127-apply-same-fn.sh > index 972946c174..fa824ac09f 100755 > --- a/t/t4127-apply-same-fn.sh > +++ b/t/t4127-apply-same-fn.sh > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ test_expect_success 'apply same filename with independent changes' ' > test_cmp same_fn same_fn2 > ' > > -test_expect_success 'apply same filename with overlapping changes' ' > +test_expect_failure 'apply same filename with overlapping changes' ' > git reset --hard && > modify "s/^d/z/" same_fn && > git diff > patch0 && > @@ -39,8 +39,13 @@ test_expect_success 'apply same filename with overlapping changes' ' > git diff >> patch0 && > cp same_fn same_fn2 && > git reset --hard && > + cp same_fn same_fn1 && > + > git apply patch0 && > - test_cmp same_fn same_fn2 > + test_cmp same_fn same_fn2 && > + > + git apply -R patch0 && > + test_cmp same_fn same_fn1 > ' > > test_expect_success 'apply same new filename after rename' ' Indeed, with my patch, this test passes instead of fails. Should I resend a version 2 that includes this test or will you apply this to your local copy?
