From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 367 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2007 22:04:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 355 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jan 2007 22:04:22 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fmmailgate01.web.de (HELO fmmailgate01.web.de) (217.72.192.221) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:04:17 +0000 Received: from smtp07.web.de (fmsmtp07.dlan.cinetic.de [172.20.5.215]) by fmmailgate01.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F7F4F05A1C; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 23:04:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from [80.140.103.143] (helo=[192.168.2.32]) by smtp07.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (WEB.DE 4.107 #114) id 1H2ah3-0002F2-00; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:04:14 +0100 Message-ID: <459D79D1.3010207@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:04:00 -0000 From: SF Markus Elfring User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Waugh CC: patchutils-list@sourceware.org Subject: Re: How to resolve hiccups by patch program? References: <1386176492@web.de> <1167919453.4854.18.camel@cyberelk.elk> In-Reply-To: <1167919453.4854.18.camel@cyberelk.elk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: Markus.Elfring@web.de X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact patchutils-list-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: patchutils-list-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q1/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 > Need to see the file it's being applied to. Commonly a reject will be > because the file the patch was made against is not the same as the file > the patch is applied to. > Advanced matching algorithms (fuzz factor ...) are used by the patch program. I wonder why my updates should not fit in this case. > No -- you just need to create a clean patch in the first place, i.e. one > that applies directly to the same file the developer is using. :-) > Do you know any other recommended tools to perform special consistency checks on my side before I submit patches from the tool that I trusted so far? I do not see from the example reject file which lines were considered as unclean and were the reason for the unexpected rejection. Can I convince the patch program to accept the "suspicious" lines in a second run? > It sounds like the tool you're using is generating the patch against a > different revision that you intend. I do not expect such a mismatch from the current TortoiseSVN software. The generated patch file contains appropriate revision informations. Do I overlook anything from my viewpoint? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversion Regards, Markus