| 1 |
On 12/13/19 6:28 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 13-12-2019 15:24:40 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>>>> ...and why do we consider it correct to apply patches when the context |
| 4 |
>>>> doesn't match? If our only goal is to make things 'easier' for |
| 5 |
>>>> 'everyone', then we could just pass -F9999 and ignore all the context. |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> Though I don't understand why include any context in the first place if |
| 8 |
>>>> you don't care about it matching. Sounds like a waste of space to me! |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> The patch command defaults to -F2. If that makes no sense, why is it |
| 11 |
>>> the upstream default? |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> You should ask upstream, not me. But if I were to guess, the answer |
| 15 |
>> would be because patch(1) is used by random people trying to apply |
| 16 |
>> random patches they've found somewhere. We on the other hand are |
| 17 |
>> applying patches that *we* are supposed to provide. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> We are providing those patches, maybe. In reality very often the |
| 20 |
> patches originate from somewhere else though. And you don't want to |
| 21 |
> have to respin all of those just because. At least that's what I feel. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Yeah, the QA Notice is apparently intended for downstream patches that |
| 24 |
require frequent rebase, while it doesn't make much sense for patches |
| 25 |
that are cherry-picked from upstream. |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
Zac |
Archives