Matches for patch, 1691 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Wed Aug 05 19:13:58 UTC 2015 <jurov> turdatron needs to take bundles of patch + manifest (at least, can be any other files aside from patches)
Wed Aug 05 19:00:37 UTC 2015 <ben_vulpes> mod6: not that my browser will do anything with the patch files but download them.
Wed Aug 05 18:59:45 UTC 2015 <danielpbarron> what about this: gzip the patch and clearsign that
Wed Aug 05 18:56:27 UTC 2015 <mod6> will deedbot take 2 parameters, a non-signed .patch file and a detached signature and somehow colese them?
Wed Aug 05 18:55:16 UTC 2015 <mod6> now, it might be that I'm not exactly understanding what the proceedure for submitting to deed bot would be. but if clearsigned .patch files, that can not work.
Wed Aug 05 17:39:35 UTC 2015 <ben_vulpes> what was the rollover patch called?
Wed Aug 05 17:36:18 UTC 2015 <punkman> a question that future patch submitters might have: should I patch against last release or most active branch?
Wed Aug 05 17:18:45 UTC 2015 <punkman> but I'm guessing as to patch order, branches, etc
Wed Aug 05 15:16:09 UTC 2015 <jurov> (currently on has to clearsign the .txt, make detached armored sig for .patch and use non-braindamaged email client to put them together)
Wed Aug 05 15:13:56 UTC 2015 <jurov> how would it look for user? got a .txt, a .patch , now what?
Wed Aug 05 14:49:38 UTC 2015 <*> asciilifeform marvelling that no one, apparently, ever noticed the glaring omission in 'patch'
Wed Aug 05 14:46:39 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> incidentally it is not necessary to alter the unix patch util. the checksums can be added by a proggy which eats standard patch file and the 'before' tree, and shits - this
Wed Aug 05 14:44:20 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> but now both sides of the patch (author and applier) will need the custom util.
Wed Aug 05 14:43:51 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> jurov: it was not a thing before, because there was no way to guarantee that the contents are what the patch author thought they were
Wed Aug 05 14:43:20 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> i will add, if it isn't obvious, that patches like the one i suggested will apply on a standard unix patch util
Wed Aug 05 14:43:11 UTC 2015 <jurov> i like it. to be able to remove files without dumping whole contents, patch should be patched, too
Wed Aug 05 14:42:11 UTC 2015 <asciilifeform> hence the 'never, ever include a patch in message text' thing.
Wed Aug 05 14:37:26 UTC 2015 <*> mircea_popescu likes, perhaps irrationally, the patch format
Wed Aug 05 14:36:48 UTC 2015 <jurov> though, with this in-band signalling we will limit ourselves to patch format
Wed Aug 05 14:34:41 UTC 2015 <mircea_popescu> asciilifeform actually a hashed diff / patch-util is a must irrerspective of anything else.