Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> What is not possible (without adding the --include-pattern option)
>>> is selecting which files to patch. Is selecting individual patch
>>> targets really that important?
>> Yes, that's very important. I often find that when I get a patch, I
>> only want to use part of it because I found that when reviewing the
>> changes I have to reject some of those changes.
> I'm not sure if this use case is worth optimising for.
> You could easily apply the patch, and then selectively revert
> some of the patched files. What you are describing is a special
> case of "I want to apply this patch and also make custom modifications
> to the patched result." Why not just apply the patch and then make
> the necessary modifications? Or request a revised patch from the patch
I do see what Stefan K is getting at. Stsp, your revert workaround does not
work when there already are modifications on the files prior to patching.
I guess 'svn patch' should enable Tortoise to be ignorant about what a patch
file format looks like. So anything it does with patches should be done by
svn. In effect, whatever Tortoise wants to do with a patch has to be
implemented in svn, taking away dev time from wc-ng, pristine store and <add
The real question is: how much effort shall we invest at this point into
selectively applying patches? Can it wait for a later release? Can someone
who really needs it implement it?
You're all free to choose, especially stsp ;)
Received on 2010-03-12 03:13:05 CET