Re: [PATCH] add -C[NUM] to git-am

"Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] writes:

Add -C[NUM] to git-am so that patches can be applied even
if context has changed a bit.

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <redacted>

---

I just had to apply a largish number of patches on a project
that has evolved since, and I found the following to be useful.

What do others think.

FWIW, I am in favor although I do not foresee myself ever using
it.  However, this has slight ramifications.

 - we will be keeping applymbox after all.  shouldn't this be
   side-ported to it?

 - am is used as a workhorse for rebase.  shouldn't this be
   accessible through its command line as well?

The same goes for Andy's --patchdepth thing.

Quoting r. Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add -C[NUM] to git-am

"Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Add -C[NUM] to git-am so that patches can be applied even
if context has changed a bit.

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <redacted>

---

I just had to apply a largish number of patches on a project
that has evolved since, and I found the following to be useful.

What do others think.

FWIW, I am in favor although I do not foresee myself ever using
it.  However, this has slight ramifications.

 - we will be keeping applymbox after all.  shouldn't this be
   side-ported to it?

OK.

 - am is used as a workhorse for rebase.  shouldn't this be
   accessible through its command line as well?

How will it be used?

-- 
MST

Hi,

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

 - we will be keeping applymbox after all.

Why? Does -am not do strictly more than applymbox?

Ciao,
Dscho

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

 - we will be keeping applymbox after all.

Why? Does -am not do strictly more than applymbox?

From documentation, it looks like applymbox can get signoff from a file,

and am not.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Hi,

[please Cc me when replying]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

 - we will be keeping applymbox after all.

Why? Does -am not do strictly more than applymbox?

From documentation, it looks like applymbox can get signoff from a file, 
and am not.

Seems like just another low-hanging fruit. But I cannot believe that this 
is the only reason to keep applymbox.

Ciao,
Dscho