Hi Larry,
Would it be possible to enable the `-p' option (Show which C function each
change is in) of diff for all patches sent to the bk-commits-* mailing lists?
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 09:41 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> Would it be possible to enable the `-p' option (Show which C function each
> change is in) of diff for all patches sent to the bk-commits-* mailing lists?
I did consider that but 'bk diffs -up' gives a context diff, not a
unified diff.
--
dwmw2
This has been fixed in the following releases:
bk-3.2.3
bk-3.2.2c
bk-3.2.2b
Correct usage is "bk diffs -up" which will get you unified + procedural diffs.
-p is currently a hack, it implies -u, but don't depend on that behaviour,
a future release does this correctly and if you teach your fingers that
diffs -p is the same as diffs -up you'll get burned later.
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 09:41:56AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> Would it be possible to enable the `-p' option (Show which C function each
> change is in) of diff for all patches sent to the bk-commits-* mailing lists?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com
On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 17:16 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 09:41 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Would it be possible to enable the `-p' option (Show which C function each
> > > change is in) of diff for all patches sent to the bk-commits-* mailing lists?
> >
> > I did consider that but 'bk diffs -up' gives a context diff, not a
> > unified diff.
>
> So it's a `regression' of bk diffs vs. GNU diff?
Possibly. Certainly it's the reason my export scripts don't use -p. If
it's deemed a bug and once it's 'fixed' on kernel.org, we can change
that.
--
dwmw2
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 09:41 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Would it be possible to enable the `-p' option (Show which C function each
> > change is in) of diff for all patches sent to the bk-commits-* mailing lists?
>
> I did consider that but 'bk diffs -up' gives a context diff, not a
> unified diff.
So it's a `regression' of bk diffs vs. GNU diff?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 08:43 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> This has been fixed in the following releases:
>
> bk-3.2.3
> bk-3.2.2c
> bk-3.2.2b
>
> Correct usage is "bk diffs -up" which will get you unified + procedural diffs.
> -p is currently a hack, it implies -u, but don't depend on that behaviour,
> a future release does this correctly and if you teach your fingers that
> diffs -p is the same as diffs -up you'll get burned later.
Actually my script is using 'bk export -du -tpatch -r$CSET'. '-dup'
doesn't seem to do the right thing.
--
dwmw2
On Mon, Nov 08 2004, Larry McVoy wrote:
> This has been fixed in the following releases:
>
> bk-3.2.3
> bk-3.2.2c
> bk-3.2.2b
>
> Correct usage is "bk diffs -up" which will get you unified + procedural diffs.
> -p is currently a hack, it implies -u, but don't depend on that behaviour,
> a future release does this correctly and if you teach your fingers that
> diffs -p is the same as diffs -up you'll get burned later.
Thanks! I requested this about a year ago :-)
--
Jens Axboe
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:41:52PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 08:43 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > This has been fixed in the following releases:
> >
> > bk-3.2.3
> > bk-3.2.2c
> > bk-3.2.2b
> >
> > Correct usage is "bk diffs -up" which will get you unified + procedural diffs.
> > -p is currently a hack, it implies -u, but don't depend on that behaviour,
> > a future release does this correctly and if you teach your fingers that
> > diffs -p is the same as diffs -up you'll get burned later.
>
> Actually my script is using 'bk export -du -tpatch -r$CSET'. '-dup'
> doesn't seem to do the right thing.
OK, this is a hack but I think you can make it work. Try moving
`bk bin`/diff `bk bin`/diff.orig and putting in a shell
script for `bk bin`/diff that just adds $BK_GNU_DIFF_OPTS to the
options and execs `bk bin`/diff.orig
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 07:06 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> OK, this is a hack but I think you can make it work. Try moving
> `bk bin`/diff `bk bin`/diff.orig and putting in a shell
> script for `bk bin`/diff that just adds $BK_GNU_DIFF_OPTS to the
> options and execs `bk bin`/diff.orig
This would need to be done on kernel.org. Since it's a relatively low
priority, I think I'd rather wait for it to be fixed (if you're actually
going to fix it).
I suppose I could install my own version of BK, but I'd rather just
wait, to be honest.
--
dwmw2