Re: [PATCH] Teach 'git apply' to look at $GIT_DIR/config

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > ...
> > git-apply has much saner defaults (it defaults to something pretty safe, 
> > and you can then make it less safe if the patch doesn't apply).
> 
> All true.

One thing I forgot to mention: "git apply" doesn't apply *anything* unless 
everything applies cleanly. In contrast, when "patch" fails in the middle, 
it will have done part of the job, and then leaves a reject file. I much 
prefer the "everything or nothing" approach of git-apply (again, obviously 
with "--reject" you can make it work the bad old way too).

> By the way, do you want to veto a related change that makes
> git-apply behave consistently between:
> 
> 	$ cd sub/directory
>         $ git apply patch.file
> 
> and
> 
> 	$ cd sub/directory
>         $ git apply --index patch.file
> 
> The issue is, that "patch.file" (typically) starts with:
> 
> 	diff a/sub/directory/Makefile b/sub/directory/Makefile
> 	--- a/sub/directory/Makefile
> 	+++ b/sub/directory/Makefile
> 
> and the form without --index would say "What are you talking
> about? I do not see sub/directory/Makefile".
> 
> I consider this is a bugfix, but it does change the behaviour,
> so I am a bit worried about possible fallout.

Ahh.. I'm not going to veto it, although I have to admit that I don't know 
what the "right answer" is, or if a "right answer" really exists.

I _think_ that the right answer is to (a) yes, make it be consistent, but 
(b) _not_ make it be the way we do "--index" now.

Right now, when we see "--index", we do the "setup_git_directory()" and 
the git_config() stuff - which is (I think) something we should always do, 
but then we do *not* prefix the patch itself with the prefix we got. And I 
think that's wrong. I think we should always do the "-p1" behaviour from 
where we started.

Then, if somebody is in a sub/directory/, maybe they need to add a "-p3" 
to indicate that, but at least that's better than having a patch that just 
says "Makefile", and applying the patch to the *wrong* "Makefile" 
(top-level one, rather than the one you were in).

Hmm?

		Linus