Hi, On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > And sure you can trust the hunk header. Like most of the things, the > > relate to the _original_ version, since the diff is meant to be > > applied as a forward patch. > > > > So for all practical matters, the diff shows the correct thing: "in > > this hunk, which (still) belongs to that function, change this and > > this." > > > > Of course, that is only the case if you accept that the diff should be > > applied _in total_, not piecewise. IOW if you are a fan of GNU patch > > which happily clobbers your file until it fails with the last hunk, > > you will not be happy. > > > > You're right. GNU patch will apply one hunk and then happily churn on > even if it fails. git-apply will apply all hunks or none, so all hunks > can assume that all previous hunks were successfully applied. So what > was your point again? My point was that this diff is not to be read as if the previous hunks had been applied. Just look at the context: it is also the original file. It seems I am singularly unable to explain plain concepts as this: a diff assumes that the file is yet unchanged. So I'll stop. Ciao, Dscho - 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
