Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #14170 > unrolled thread

Re: Bash patches format

Back to article view | Back to gnu.bash.bug

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Bash patches format Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com> - 2018-05-29 23:44 -0400

#14170 — Re: Bash patches format

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

Marty E. Plummer wrote:
>> If people are willing to do the conversion between patch formats for their
>> own purposes, more power to them. I don't see any compelling reason to
>> change the format I use.
>> 
> Could I at least convince you to start doing -p1, if not unified?

Don't we essentially already have both context and unified
diff formats, thanks to git?  If you wanted bash-4.4 patch
19, for example, you could get the context diff which Chet
publishes here:

    https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/bash-4.4-patches/bash44-019

or you could take it from the git 'Bash-4.4 patch 19' commit
in git as a unified diff?  That's what the Fedora bash
package uses.  They're not converting the context diff patch
files to unified diff.

The main difference is the lack of detail in the git commit
message.  It would great if the same data found in the
bash44-019 patch file was added to the git commit message.
Then you would have the same thing as the context diff patch
in a unified diff via 'git format-patch' or the cgit patch
URL.

-- 
Todd
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I look up to the heaven's for a ray of hope to shine.
And there it is in neon: Liquor, beer, and wine.

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | gnu.bash.bug

csiph-web