Re: Patch command execution

On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:41:12PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <dan@dberlin.org> writes:
> > Shouldn't we be using the -N option so we don't try to apply reversed
> > /already applied patches (-N = forward patch only, ignore reversed/already
> > applied)
> > Otherwise, if the change already exists in your local tree, it'll get a
> > reject.
> >
> > Of course, patch isn't perfect (i don't think it'll let you ignore just
> > portions of an already applied patch), so maybe this is deliberate?
>
> I think we should pass -N too, but let's give it a day to see if
> anyone else realizes some evil consequences of doing so...

someone mentioned this on the list a while back, and even tried it out
and posted a unit test for this behavior, but i believe they mentioned
that it didn't work the way they wanted it to for some reason. i
believe they posted something about it in the issue about patch
erroring out if the changes already exist.

-garrett

-- 
garrett rooney                     Unix was not designed to stop you from 
rooneg@electricjellyfish.net       doing stupid things, because that would  
http://electricjellyfish.net/      stop you from doing clever things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org