Simon 'corecode' Schubert <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Simon 'corecode' Schubert <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> You mean not storing/restoring the flags across an invocation? No, >>> that's a different thing. My patch only adds the --directory option, >>> it does not fix the previously existing bug. >> >> The question is if it _introduces_ a bug that the directory given in the >> initial invocation of "git am --directory=foo" is lost if an patch does >> not apply and you need to manually resolve and continue. >> >> If it does not introduce such a bug, you do not have the same issue as the >> old patch. Otherwise you have the same issue as the old patch. The >> question was if you have the same issue or you don't. Yes? No? > > Yes, that's the issue. In this regard it behaves bug-compatible with > the -p and -C options. If that is the case, and assuming that propagating -C/-p would be a good idea (which I am not sure yet), the patch I sent out earlier (which was flawed somewhat; it should use "$git_apply_opt_extra" where it invokes the "git apply" command) with necessary fix would serve as the basis to implement --directory=<dir>? -- 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
