From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [GIT]: Networking Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:49:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20090105.204934.65827705.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20090105.201530.195720489.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Linus Torvalds Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:37:58 -0800 (PST) > > The default is extremely strict, which makes me check things out by > > hand. That's good, but as I add the change by hand after verifying > > it's sanity I often make mistakes that result in things like the above > > missed delete, so if I could ask git to be non-strict it would help me > > out a lot. > > Yeah, I know, "git am" really is very strict, and sometimes annoyingly so. > But it _can_ be overridden. And if the other end uses git to generate the > patch, you can also do a three-way apply, which really tends to work. But > that requires that the patch have the SHA1 ID's of the original blobs (and > that you have those blobs - ie that the patch was really generated against > something you already had) That wouldn't have helped me in this case at all. I had 4 firmware patches to apply, each one had to add entries to the same file. The first patch had to be skipped. So the second one, which is the first one I added (which is the acenic bogon with the missed delete), is the one GIT wouldn't take but patch would. GIT blobs wouldn't give me any help here, but I suppose the fuzz stuff might have. I really just want stupid 'patch' behavior. I'll check the result carefully, so just apply the thing instead of making me jump through hoops. :-)