# Should cg-mkpatch output be usable with cg-patch? 6 messages from 2005-07-20 to 2005-07-24. Participants: Wolfgang Denk, Junio C Hamano, Petr Baudis. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/1281 ## Wolfgang Denk, 2005-07-20 23:49 Subject: Should cg-mkpatch output be usable with cg-patch? Message-ID: <20050720234904.B3ED735267C@atlas.denx.de> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20050720234904.B3ED735267C%40atlas.denx.de ``` 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. Forexample. if a commit contains permission changes, my generated patch may look like this: ... diff --git a/MAKEALL b/MAKEALL old mode 100644 new mode 100755 diff --git a/mkconfig b/mkconfig old mode 100644 new mode 100755 diff --git a/tools/img2brec.sh b/tools/img2brec.sh old mode 100644 new mode 100755 ... If I feed this into "cg-patch", I get: patch: **** Only garbage was found in the patch input. -> rpm -q cogito cogito-0.12.1-1 Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de I really hate this damned machine It never does quite what I want I wish that they would sell it. But only what I tell it. ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-07-21 03:57 Subject: Re: Should cg-mkpatch output be usable with cg-patch? Message-ID: <7vackgerpe.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vackgerpe.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: <20050720234904.B3ED735267C@atlas.denx.de> ``` Wolfgang Denk writes: > 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. Forexample. if a commit contains > permission changes, my generated patch may look like this: Yes, cg-patch does grok git extended diff headers, but does it by hand and missing corner cases like this is understandable. I only briefly looked at cg-patch, but I suspect that it can lose 90% lines of its code by just using "git-apply --index". I see cg-patch wants to be able to do reverse patch, which is not supported by git-apply currently. Do people find "cg-patch -R" useful? ``` ## Petr Baudis, 2005-07-22 21:02 Subject: Re: Should cg-mkpatch output be usable with cg-patch? Message-ID: <20050722210225.GF11916@pasky.ji.cz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20050722210225.GF11916%40pasky.ji.cz In-Reply-To: <7vackgerpe.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` Dear diary, on Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 05:57:49AM CEST, I got a letter where Junio C Hamano told me that... > I only briefly looked at cg-patch, but I suspect that it can > lose 90% lines of its code by just using "git-apply --index". Can git-apply already deal with fuzzy patches? -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching someone. -- Alan Cox ``` ## Petr Baudis, 2005-07-22 21:03 Subject: Re: Should cg-mkpatch output be usable with cg-patch? Message-ID: <20050722210352.GG11916@pasky.ji.cz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20050722210352.GG11916%40pasky.ji.cz In-Reply-To: <20050720234904.B3ED735267C@atlas.denx.de> ``` Dear diary, on Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 01:49:04AM CEST, I got a letter where Wolfgang Denk told me that... > 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. > Forexample. if a commit contains permission changes, my generated > patch may look like this: > > ... > diff --git a/MAKEALL b/MAKEALL > old mode 100644 > new mode 100755 > diff --git a/mkconfig b/mkconfig > old mode 100644 > new mode 100755 > diff --git a/tools/img2brec.sh b/tools/img2brec.sh > old mode 100644 > new mode 100755 > ... > > If I feed this into "cg-patch", I get: > > patch: **** Only garbage was found in the patch input. And did the changes apply? :-) 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. :) -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching someone. -- Alan Cox ``` ## Wolfgang Denk, 2005-07-24 17:50 Subject: Re: Should cg-mkpatch output be usable with cg-patch? Message-ID: <20050724175018.3D721352B73@atlas.denx.de> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20050724175018.3D721352B73%40atlas.denx.de In-Reply-To: <20050722210352.GG11916@pasky.ji.cz> ``` 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? > > diff --git a/tools/img2brec.sh b/tools/img2brec.sh > > old mode 100644 > > new mode 100755 > > ... > > If I feed this into "cg-patch", I get: > > patch: **** Only garbage was found in the patch input. > > And did the changes apply? :-) No, they did not. No file modes were changed. > 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. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de Too many people are ready to carry the stool when the piano needs to be moved. ``` ## Petr Baudis, 2005-07-24 22:48 Subject: Re: Should cg-mkpatch output be usable with cg-patch? Message-ID: <20050724224830.GG7601@pasky.ji.cz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20050724224830.GG7601%40pasky.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 told me that... > 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. ;-) > > 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 ```