From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] add -C[NUM] to git-am Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:23:50 -0800 Message-ID: <7vejp17m3t.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20070207201511.GF12140@mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 07 21:23:56 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HEtKd-0005tJ-76 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:23:55 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422770AbXBGUXw (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:23:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422771AbXBGUXw (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:23:52 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao107.cox.net ([68.230.241.39]:54208 "EHLO fed1rmmtao107.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422770AbXBGUXw (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:23:52 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070207202352.PBRM1306.fed1rmmtao107.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:23:52 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id LkPq1W00z1kojtg0000000; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:23:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20070207201511.GF12140@mellanox.co.il> (Michael S. Tsirkin's message of "Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:15:11 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes: > Add -C[NUM] to git-am so that patches can be applied even > if context has changed a bit. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin > > --- > > I just had to apply a largish number of patches on a project > that has evolved since, and I found the following to be useful. > > What do others think. FWIW, I am in favor although I do not foresee myself ever using it. However, this has slight ramifications. - we will be keeping applymbox after all. shouldn't this be side-ported to it? - am is used as a workhorse for rebase. shouldn't this be accessible through its command line as well? The same goes for Andy's --patchdepth thing.