| 1 |
On 13/12/19 21:42, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 16:37 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:36 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Just like 'many of the proposals lately', developers are going to be |
| 5 |
>>> the ones disabling it (because they don't care), and users will be the |
| 6 |
>>> ones enabling it (because they do care), just to learn that developers |
| 7 |
>>> don't care and go complaining to the mailing lists that users dare |
| 8 |
>>> report issues they don't care about. |
| 9 |
>> I care if the patch is actually broken, which the warning doesn't |
| 10 |
>> really tell me. It's just not a very reliable indicator, and will |
| 11 |
>> produce false-positives frequently. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> You can also take less context into the patch and use -F0. Then you'll |
| 14 |
> have the same effect, no warnings to bother you and no pretending that |
| 15 |
> the patch applies when it doesn't. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
Is there any mileage in having a similar scheme to which we already apply |
| 18 |
'-p' increments to the -F variable? |
| 19 |
eg. |
| 20 |
1) attempt patch with -F0 |
| 21 |
2) if (1) fails, attempt with -F2/3 & display 'yellow' warning & QA notice |
| 22 |
3) if (2) fails, attempt with, say, -F10 & display big fat 'red' warning |
| 23 |
and QA notice |
| 24 |
4) Fail and abort |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Regards, |
| 27 |
veremitz/Michael. |
Archives