From nobody Mon Apr 11 16:58:48 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37FFCFC532 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:59:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4KcZnc60cKz4cpt for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:59:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 23BGwnF7073622; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:58:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 23BGwmcC073621; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:58:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202204111658.23BGwmcC073621@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: [RFC] patch's default backup behavior In-Reply-To: To: Joerg Sonnenberger Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:58:48 -0700 (PDT) CC: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] List-Id: Technical discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-hackers List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4KcZnc60cKz4cpt X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net has no SPF policy when checking 69.59.192.140) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.47 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.995]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.37)[-0.374]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[dnsmgr.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-hackers]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N > Am Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 10:25:08PM -0500 schrieb Kyle Evans: > > I'd like to test the waters on switching this to the GNU behavior, > > which feels a whole lot more reasonable. Notably, they'll only create > > backup files if a mismatch was detected (presumably this means either > > a hunk needed fuzz or a hunk outright failed). This yields far fewer > > backup files in the ideal scenario (context entirely matches), while > > still leaving backup files when it's sensible (base file changed and > > we might want to regenerate the patch). > > > > Thoughts / comments / concerns? > > Personally, I'm more often annoyed by the GNU behavior than not. > Especially when working on pkgsrc, the GNU behavior of > sometimes-not-creating-backups actually breaks tooling. I also consider > the rationale somewhat fishy as tools like sed have historically not > operated in-place. Personally, if YOU like the behavior of gnu patch, by all means, please USE gnu patch. Please do NOT make bsd patch behave in a different manner simply because you personally like that other behavior. If you want the stuff to look like Linux/GNU by all means, go RUN linux/gnu!!!! -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org