1 |
On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 17:15 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:42 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
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. |
22 |
> |
23 |
|
24 |
Then make patches with -U0. |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Best regards, |
28 |
Michał Górny |