Re: [PATCH] git-am: indicate where a failed patch is to be found.

On 12-07-12 01:45 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Paul Gortmaker [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

If git am wasn't run with --reject, we assume the end user
knows where to find the patch.  This is normally true for
a single patch,

Not at all.  Whether it is a single or broken, the patch is fed to
underlying "apply" from an unadvertised place.

What I meant by this was the difference between:

	git am 0001-some-standalone-single.patch
vs.
	git am mbox

In the 1st, the standalone patch is 100% clear and easy to access,
because we really don't need/care about the unadvertised place.

Maybe I should have said "knows how to get at the single patch"?

quoted

So, provide a helpful hint as to where they can
find the patch ...

This is OK, but you may want to give a way to squelch it once the
user learns where it is by following the usual "advice.*" thing.

quoted

... to do the manual fixup before eventually
continuing with "git add ... ; git am -r".

This is _NOT_ fine, especially if you suggest "patch" the user may
not have, and more importantly does not have a clue why "git apply"
rejected it ("am" does _not_ use "patch" at all).

I'm not 100% sure I'm following what part here is not OK.  If you
can help me understand that, I'll respin the change accordingly.

Is it the assumption that the user will have the patch
command in /usr/bin not OK, or that the message implies that
git is somehow using /usr/bin/patch is not OK?

In case it helps any, a brief summary of my workflow is this:

git am /tmp/mbox
<some random fail halfway in the queue>
patch -p1 --dry-run < .git/rebase-apply/patch
# gauge status.  Is patch really invalid, or already applied?
# already applied; "git am --skip"
# no, if valid, but with minor issues, apply what we can.
patch -p1 < .git/rebase-apply/patch
# manually deal with rejects (typically with wiggle)
git add any_new_files
git add -u
git am -r

Paul.
--