From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:00:35 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-am: indicate where a failed patch is to be found. Message-ID: <7v629sbvh8.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <4FFF2720.6090705@windriver.com> Paul Gortmaker writes: >>>> This is _NOT_ fine, especially if you suggest "patch" the user may >>>> not have, and more importantly does not have a clue why "git apply" >>>> rejected it ("am" does _not_ use "patch" at all). >>> >>> I'm not 100% sure I'm following what part here is not OK. If you >>> can help me understand that, I'll respin the change accordingly. >> >> Do not ever mention "patch -p1". It is not the command that "git >> am" uses, and it is not what detected the breakage in the patch. > > This may be true, but it _is_ the command that I (and others) have > defaulted to using, if for no other reason than ignorance. >> >> The command to guide the user to is "git apply". > > OK. But I don't see a "--dry-run" equivalent -- and "git apply --check" > just gives me a repeat of the same fail messages that "git am" did. > > With "patch -p1 --dry-run" I get information that immediately > lets me see whether the patch is viable or not. What do you mean by "viable"? Independent from the answer to that question... Running "git apply -p1" would by definition give you the same failure without --dry-run (because you know it already failed), no? Then you could ask for rejects or attempt to apply with reduced contexts to "git apply" all without having to say --dry-run, as unapplicable change will not be applied.