| 1 |
On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 3:41 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 17:15 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:42 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 16:37 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:36 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > > Just like 'many of the proposals lately', developers are going to be |
| 8 |
> > > > > the ones disabling it (because they don't care), and users will be the |
| 9 |
> > > > > ones enabling it (because they do care), just to learn that developers |
| 10 |
> > > > > don't care and go complaining to the mailing lists that users dare |
| 11 |
> > > > > report issues they don't care about. |
| 12 |
> > > > |
| 13 |
> > > > I care if the patch is actually broken, which the warning doesn't |
| 14 |
> > > > really tell me. It's just not a very reliable indicator, and will |
| 15 |
> > > > produce false-positives frequently. |
| 16 |
> > > > |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > You can also take less context into the patch and use -F0. Then you'll |
| 19 |
> > > have the same effect, no warnings to bother you and no pretending that |
| 20 |
> > > the patch applies when it doesn't. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > That really doesn't help me. My point is that I don't want to touch |
| 23 |
> > the patch unless it is actually necessary to do so. |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Then make patches with -U0. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
As others have already stated, I might not be the one making the patch |
| 29 |
in the first place. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Your position seems to be that ignoring any amount of context is bad, |
| 32 |
and I simply don't agree with that. If you can show me that it is |
| 33 |
causing an epidemic of broken patches to be applied erroneously, you |
| 34 |
might change my mind. Otherwise, please stop with the non-solutions |
| 35 |
you keep throwing at me. |
Archives