Linus> I have to admit that I think the POSIX patch behaviour is less
Linus> than optimal, and the first time I saw it I went "oh, crap, who
Linus> came up with this idea?"
Hmmm, couldn't have put it better ;-)
Linus> Oh, well. The best behaviour would probably be to always do
Linus> the backup files, and then if everything patches cleanly you
Linus> remove the files at the very end - but if there is any problem
Linus> what-so-ever you'd leave all backup files alone, even for files
Linus> that were successfully patched.
Nod
Linus> This is one of the things that source control makes a
Linus> non-issue, of course, so in that sense the new behaviour is
Linus> more source-control- oriented.
I rely heavily on 'find . -type f -size 0b \! -name \*,t' to find out
what files are new so I can make sure to include them in my CVS
tree. In this sense I'd say 2.5 is far less source control friendly.
The lack of having .orig's generated per default like 2.1 did and not
having an env-var one could set to get 2.5 to use the same defaults as
2.1 is what makes me really dislike 2.5.
Oh well, I guess I should get back to coding ;-)
Jes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/