Details
Details
- Reviewers
carlavilla ygy bapt - Group Reviewers
docs portmgr - Commits
- R9:51d1d857fa76: Porter's handbook: Mention git-format-patch(1) in using git to make patches
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- R9 FreeBSD doc repository
- Lint
No Lint Coverage - Unit
No Test Coverage - Build Status
Buildable 42251 Build 39139: arc lint + arc unit
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Maybe worth mentioning context lines (-U9999) and only generating a patch for the requested commit itself (-1)
| documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 183 | ||
| documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 122 | This is only true if you use format-patch? | |
Comment Actions
This is only true if you use format-patch?
I believe you need to use git-am(1) to get the metadata (author, timestamps, et cetera) applied.
| documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 120–122 | Shouldn't git-am(1) be mentioned for git-format-patch? | |
| 122 |
| |
| documentation/content/en/books/porters-handbook/upgrading/_index.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 182 | "Where foo is replaced with the first line of the commit message." | |
| 183 | I'd suggest that "Once the patch is accepted upstream" here. There's no harm in keeping branches around and it's a pain in the butt to try to reconstruct the branch from the hashes in the diffs (which aren't the commit hash, but the object hash). | |