Stefan Sperling wrote: >>> What is not possible (without adding the --include-pattern option) >>> is selecting which files to patch. Is selecting individual patch >>> targets really that important? >> Yes, that's very important. I often find that when I get a patch, I >> only want to use part of it because I found that when reviewing the >> changes I have to reject some of those changes. > > I'm not sure if this use case is worth optimising for. > You could easily apply the patch, and then selectively revert > some of the patched files. What you are describing is a special > case of "I want to apply this patch and also make custom modifications > to the patched result." Why not just apply the patch and then make > the necessary modifications? Or request a revised patch from the patch > submitter?
I do see what Stefan K is getting at. Stsp, your revert workaround does not work when there already are modifications on the files prior to patching. I guess 'svn patch' should enable Tortoise to be ignorant about what a patch file format looks like. So anything it does with patches should be done by svn. In effect, whatever Tortoise wants to do with a patch has to be implemented in svn, taking away dev time from wc-ng, pristine store and <add cool features>. The real question is: how much effort shall we invest at this point into selectively applying patches? Can it wait for a later release? Can someone who really needs it implement it? You're all free to choose, especially stsp ;) ~Neels
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
