Hi,

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:

quoted text
> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> >  And sure you can trust the hunk header.  Like most of the things, the 
> > relate to the _original_ version, since the diff is meant to be 
> > applied as a forward patch.
> > 
> > So for all practical matters, the diff shows the correct thing: "in 
> > this hunk, which (still) belongs to that function, change this and 
> > this."
> > 
> > Of course, that is only the case if you accept that the diff should be 
> > applied _in total_, not piecewise.  IOW if you are a fan of GNU patch 
> > which happily clobbers your file until it fails with the last hunk, 
> > you will not be happy.
> > 
> 
> You're right. GNU patch will apply one hunk and then happily churn on 
> even if it fails. git-apply will apply all hunks or none, so all hunks 
> can assume that all previous hunks were successfully applied. So what 
> was your point again?

My point was that this diff is not to be read as if the previous hunks had 
been applied.  Just look at the context: it is also the original file.

It seems I am singularly unable to explain plain concepts as this: a diff 
assumes that the file is yet unchanged.

So I'll stop.

Ciao,
Dscho

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html