On 12.03.2010 10:45, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 03:11:06AM +0100, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
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.
It does. You can manually revert the edits 'svn patch' made to the file.
But that requires that the user knows for *sure* which changes are made
by the patch file and which ones were already there. And believe me,
many users won't know that, especially if they made a lot of changes to
that file.
Whether this is feasible or not really depends on the kind of modifications
the user and the patch are making. But it seems to me like the tortoise
GUI was designed around the assumption that users will often want to
apply only parts of patches at file-level granularity. I don't believe
that this is what people do in reality, so I'm questioning this GUI
design because it has repercussions on the svn patch API.
Well, *I* usually do that, and so do many others I know.
Stefan
--
___
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
