Re: Should cg-mkpatch output be usable with cg-patch?
- From
Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
- Date
- Jul 24, 2005, 22:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20050724224830.GG7601@pasky.ji.cz>
- In-Reply-To
- <20050724175018.3D721352B73@atlas.denx.de>
Dear diary, on Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 07:50:18PM CEST, I got a letter where Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> told me that...
Show 9 quoted lines
> In message <20050722210352.GG11916@pasky.ji.cz> you wrote: > > > > > I wander what I should do with "cg-mkpatch" generated output; I had > > > the impression that this should be usable with "cg-patch", but these > > > are incompatible with each other. > > > > They certainly aren't. > > Is this a problem with the current implementation, or intentional?
Implementation. Should be fixed now, after rewriting part of it. ;-)
Show 6 quoted lines
> > The message is surely confusing, but appeared to be rather corner-casy > > and after I imagined the required complexity of filtering this, I > > decided to spend my time on something more useful for the time being. :) > > I don't think this is a corner case. I think it is pretty important > to be able to promote permissiong changes.
Of course. By the corner case I meant "the external patch tool invoked by cg-patch emits bogus error in case of patch containing only mode changes and nothing else". I wasn't aware that the changes wouldn't apply at all - actually, I was when I was writing the code, but completely forgot about it later.
Thanks,
-- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching someone. -- Alan Cox