Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2022 13:06:33 UTC
In message <CACNAnaFi2Ee5M5bX=FoaV-h=nC0kVrpEBqzuyG8SQhJeqkto3g@mail.gmail.c om> , Kyle Evans writes: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 10:41 PM Warner Losh <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022, 9:26 PM Kyle Evans <email@example.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hello! > >> > >> FreeBSD's patch follows historical patch(1) behavior w.r.t. backups, > >> where a backup is created for every file patched. > >> > >> 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? Cross-posted this to a couple of > >> different lists to try and hit the largest number of stakeholders in > >> patch(1) behavior. > > > > > > Could one select the old behavior? Or would it just be a change? A new -V v > alue? > > > > Yeah, the current behavior is actually represented by the `-b` flag. > With the new behavior, we'd specifically implement > `--backup-if-mismatch` (a nop from the beginning), > `--no-backup-if-mismatch` (turn off backups, equivalent to `-V none` > but "lighter" in that it won't override -b/-V) and we'd leave existing > flags otherwise alone. Looks good to me. > > > I like the Idea. > > > > Warner > > > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Kyle Evans > >> > -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: https://FreeBSD.org NTP: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Web: https://nwtime.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.