Re: [RFC] patch's default backup behavior
- Reply: Kyle Evans : "Re: [RFC] patch's default backup behavior"
- In reply to: Rodney W. Grimes: "Re: [RFC] patch's default backup behavior"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:07:04 UTC
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:59 AM Rodney W. Grimes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > 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!!!! > Your response is completely missing the point, and could have been omitted. Thanks, Kyle Evans