Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] eapply: Drop -s option for patch.

[Michael 'veremitz' Everitt]

On 13/12/19 21:59, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 21:56 +0000, Michael 'veremitz' Everitt wrote:
>> On 13/12/19 21:42, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 16:37 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:36 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
>>>>> Just like 'many of the proposals lately', developers are going to be
>>>>> the ones disabling it (because they don't care), and users will be the
>>>>> ones enabling it (because they do care), just to learn that developers
>>>>> don't care and go complaining to the mailing lists that users dare
>>>>> report issues they don't care about.
>>>> I care if the patch is actually broken, which the warning doesn't
>>>> really tell me. It's just not a very reliable indicator, and will
>>>> produce false-positives frequently.
>>>>
>>> You can also take less context into the patch and use -F0.  Then you'll
>>> have the same effect, no warnings to bother you and no pretending that
>>> the patch applies when it doesn't.
>>>
>> Is there any mileage in having a similar scheme to which we already apply
>> '-p' increments to the -F variable?
>> eg.
>> 1) attempt patch with -F0
>> 2) if (1) fails, attempt with -F2/3 & display 'yellow' warning & QA notice
> That is precisely what my patch does and what people are complaining
> about.
Ah, apologies for the failure to grok.

Tangentially, but also brought up on the thread, I'm actually even
moderately concerned about the ghost seds that may never apply. Topic for
another thread though I feel.
>> 3) if (2) fails, attempt with, say, -F10 & display big fat 'red' warning
>> and QA notice
> That makes no sense as it exceeds context provided in most patches.
>
Fair .. hadn't thought of that - depends very much if you're using unified
diffs, which I believe we largely are.