| 1 |
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:42 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 16:37 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:36 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > Just like 'many of the proposals lately', developers are going to be |
| 6 |
> > > the ones disabling it (because they don't care), and users will be the |
| 7 |
> > > ones enabling it (because they do care), just to learn that developers |
| 8 |
> > > don't care and go complaining to the mailing lists that users dare |
| 9 |
> > > report issues they don't care about. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > I care if the patch is actually broken, which the warning doesn't |
| 12 |
> > really tell me. It's just not a very reliable indicator, and will |
| 13 |
> > produce false-positives frequently. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> You can also take less context into the patch and use -F0. Then you'll |
| 17 |
> have the same effect, no warnings to bother you and no pretending that |
| 18 |
> the patch applies when it doesn't. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That really doesn't help me. My point is that I don't want to touch |
| 21 |
the patch unless it is actually necessary to do so. |
Archives