Mercurial > hgbook

--- a/ja/mq.tex	Mon Mar 31 17:28:24 2008 +0900
+++ b/ja/mq.tex	Thu Apr 10 23:41:57 2008 +0900
@@ -835,90 +835,134 @@
 $B$O%Q%9L>$r$3$N7A<0$G@8@.$7!$(B\hgcmd{import}$B%3%^%s%I$H(BMQ$B$O%9%H%j%C%W%+%&%s(B
 $B%H(B1$B$rA0Ds$H$7$F$$$k!%(B

-If you receive a patch from someone that you want to add to your patch
-queue, and the patch needs a strip count other than one, you cannot
-just \hgxcmd{mq}{qimport} the patch, because \hgxcmd{mq}{qimport} does not yet
-have a \texttt{-p} option (see~\bug{311}).
-
-Your best bet is to
-\hgxcmd{mq}{qnew} a patch of your own, then use \cmdargs{patch}{-p\emph{N}}
-to apply their patch, followed by \hgcmd{addremove} to pick up any
-files added or removed by the patch, followed by \hgxcmd{mq}{qrefresh}.
-This complexity may become unnecessary; see~\bug{311} for details.
+%If you receive a patch from someone that you want to add to your patch
+%queue, and the patch needs a strip count other than one, you cannot
+%just \hgxcmd{mq}{qimport} the patch, because \hgxcmd{mq}{qimport} does not yet
+%have a \texttt{-p} option (see~\bug{311}).  Your best bet is to
+%\hgxcmd{mq}{qnew} a patch of your own, then use \cmdargs{patch}{-p\emph{N}}
+%to apply their patch, followed by \hgcmd{addremove} to pick up any
+%files added or removed by the patch, followed by \hgxcmd{mq}{qrefresh}.
+%This complexity may become unnecessary; see~\bug{311} for details.

-$BC/$+$+$i%Q%C%A$r<u$1<h$j!$%Q%C%A%-%e!<$KDI2C$7$h$&$H$9$k;~!$%Q%C%A%+%&%s(B
-$B%H$,(B1$B0J30$G$"$l$PC1$K(B\hgxcmd{mq}{qimport}$B$9$k$3$H$O$G$-$J$$!%$3$l$O(B
-\hgxcmd{mq}{qimport}$B%3%^%s%I$,$^$@(B\texttt{-p}$B%*%W%7%g%s$r;}$C$F$$$J$$$?(B
-$B$a$@!J(B\bug{311}$B$r;2>H!K!%(B
-
-$B0lHVNI$5$=$&$J$N$O!$(B\hgxcmd{mq}{qnew}$B$G?7$?$K%Q%C%A$r:n$j!$(B
-\cmdargs{patch}{-p\emph{N}}$B$r<B9T$7$F<u$1<h$C$?%Q%C%A$rE,MQ$7$?8e!$(B
-$B%Q%C%A$K$h$C$FDI2C$5$l$?$j:o=|$5$l$?%U%!%$%k$r(B\hgcmd{addremove}$B$K$h$C$F(B
-$B%T%C%/%"%C%W$7!$(B\hgxcmd{mq}{qrefresh}$B$r<B9T$9$k$3$H$G$"$k!%$3$NJ#;($J<j(B
-$B=g$O>-MhE*$K$OI,MW$J$/$J$k$O$:$@!J(B\bug{311}$B$r;2>H!K!%(B
+$BC/$+$+$i%Q%C%A$r<u$1<h$j!$%Q%C%A%-%e!<$KDI2C$9$k$H$-!$%9%H%j%C%W%+%&%s%H(B
+$B$,(B1$B0J30$G$"$l$PC1$K(B\hgxcmd{mq}{qimport}$B$9$k$3$H$O$G$-$J$$!%$3$l$O(B
+\hgxcmd{mq}{qimport}$B%3%^%s%I$,$^$@(B\texttt{-p}$B%*%W%7%g%s$r;}$C$F$$$J$$$?$a(B
+$B$@!J(B\bug{311}$B$r;2>H!K!%:G$b>e<j$/$$$-$=$&$JJ}K!$O!$(B\hgxcmd{mq}{qnew}$B$G?7(B
+$B$?$K%Q%C%A$r:n$j!$(B\cmdargs{patch}{-p\emph{N}}$B$r<B9T$7$F<u$1<h$C$?%Q%C%A$r(B
+$BE,MQ$7$?8e!$%Q%C%A$K$h$C$FDI2C$5$l$?$j:o=|$5$l$?%U%!%$%k$r(B
+\hgcmd{addremove}$B$K$h$C$F%T%C%/%"%C%W$7!$(B\hgxcmd{mq}{qrefresh}$B$r<B9T$9$k(B
+$B$3$H$G$"$k!%$3$NJ#;($J<j=g$O>-MhE*$K$OI,MW$J$/$J$k$O$:$@!J(B\bug{311}$B$r;2(B
+$B>H!K!%(B

 %\subsection{Strategies for applying a patch}
 \subsection{$B%Q%C%AE,MQ$N$?$a$N@oN,(B}

-When \command{patch} applies a hunk, it tries a handful of
-successively less accurate strategies to try to make the hunk apply.
-This falling-back technique often makes it possible to take a patch
-that was generated against an old version of a file, and apply it
-against a newer version of that file.
+%When \command{patch} applies a hunk, it tries a handful of
+%successively less accurate strategies to try to make the hunk apply.
+%This falling-back technique often makes it possible to take a patch
+%that was generated against an old version of a file, and apply it
+%against a newer version of that file.

-\command{patch}$B$,(Bhunk$B$rE,MQ$9$k$H$-!$(B
+\command{patch}$B$,(Bhunk$B$rE,MQ$9$k$H$-!$$$$/$D$+$N$"$^$j@53N$G$J$$@oN,$rB3$1(B
+$B$FMQ$$$k!%$3$N%U%)!<%k%P%C%/<jK!$K$h$C$F!$8E$$%P!<%8%g%s$N%U%!%$%k$KBP$7(B
+$B$F:n@.$7$?%Q%C%A$r?7$7$$%U%!%$%k$KE,MQ$9$k$3$H$5$($7$P$7$P2DG=$H$J$k!%(B

+%First, \command{patch} tries an exact match, where the line numbers,
+%the context, and the text to be modified must apply exactly.  If it
+%cannot make an exact match, it tries to find an exact match for the
+%context, without honouring the line numbering information.  If this
+%succeeds, it prints a line of output saying that the hunk was applied,
+%but at some \emph{offset} from the original line number.

-First, \command{patch} tries an exact match, where the line numbers,
-the context, and the text to be modified must apply exactly.  If it
-cannot make an exact match, it tries to find an exact match for the
-context, without honouring the line numbering information.  If this
-succeeds, it prints a line of output saying that the hunk was applied,
-but at some \emph{offset} from the original line number.
+$B:G=i$K!$(B\command{patch}$B$O9THV9f!$%3%s%F%-%9%H!$JQ99$5$l$k%F%-%9%H$N@53N$J(B
+$B%^%C%A$r;n$_$k!%@53N$J%^%C%A$,$G$-$J$$>l9g!$9THV9f$rL5;k$7$F%3%s%F%-%9%H(B
+$B$N@53N$J%^%C%A$r;n$_$k!%$3$l$,@.8y$9$l$P!$(Bhunk$B$,E,MQ$5$l$?$,!$(B\emph{$B%*%U(B
+$B%;%C%H(B}$B$,@8$8$?$H$$$&%a%C%;!<%8$rI=<($9$k!%(B
+
+%If a context-only match fails, \command{patch} removes the first and
+%last lines of the context, and tries a \emph{reduced} context-only
+%match.  If the hunk with reduced context succeeds, it prints a message
+%saying that it applied the hunk with a \emph{fuzz factor} (the number
+%after the fuzz factor indicates how many lines of context
+%\command{patch} had to trim before the patch applied).

-If a context-only match fails, \command{patch} removes the first and
-last lines of the context, and tries a \emph{reduced} context-only
-match.  If the hunk with reduced context succeeds, it prints a message
-saying that it applied the hunk with a \emph{fuzz factor} (the number
-after the fuzz factor indicates how many lines of context
-\command{patch} had to trim before the patch applied).
+$B%3%s%F%-%9%H$N$_$N%^%C%A$,<:GT$9$k$H!$(B\command{patch}$B$O%3%s%F%-%9%H$N:G=i(B
+$B$H:G8e$N9T$r:o$j!$%3%s%F%-%9%H$N(B\emph{$B=L>.(B}$B%^%C%A$r;n$_$k!%=L>.%3%s%F%-%9(B
+$B%H$K$h$k(Bhunk$B$,@.8y$9$k$H!$(Bhunk$B$,E,MQ$5$l$?$3$H$H(B\emph{fuzz $B%U%!%/%?!<(B}$B$r(B
+$B4^$`%a%C%;!<%8$rI=<($9$k!%!J(Bfuzz$B%U%!%/%?!<$N8e$m$N?t;z$O!$(B
+\command{patch}$B%3%^%s%I$,!$%Q%C%A$rE,MQ$9$kA0$K%3%s%F%-%9%H$N2?9T$r:o=|$9(B
+$B$kI,MW$,$"$C$?$N$+$r<($9!%!K(B

-When neither of these techniques works, \command{patch} prints a
-message saying that the hunk in question was rejected.  It saves
-rejected hunks (also simply called ``rejects'') to a file with the
-same name, and an added \sfilename{.rej} extension.  It also saves an
-unmodified copy of the file with a \sfilename{.orig} extension; the
-copy of the file without any extensions will contain any changes made
-by hunks that \emph{did} apply cleanly.  If you have a patch that
-modifies \filename{foo} with six hunks, and one of them fails to
-apply, you will have: an unmodified \filename{foo.orig}, a
-\filename{foo.rej} containing one hunk, and \filename{foo}, containing
-the changes made by the five successful five hunks.
+%When neither of these techniques works, \command{patch} prints a message
+%saying that the hunk in question was rejected.  It saves rejected hunks
+%(also simply called ``rejects'') to a file with the same name, and an
+%added \sfilename{.rej} extension.  It also saves an unmodified copy of
+%the file with a \sfilename{.orig} extension; the copy of the file
+%without any extensions will contain any changes made by hunks that
+%\emph{did} apply cleanly.  If you have a patch that modifies
+%\filename{foo} with six hunks, and one of them fails to apply, you will
+%have: an unmodified \filename{foo.orig}, a \filename{foo.rej} containing
+%one hunk, and \filename{foo}, containing the changes made by the five
+%successful five hunks.
+
+$B$I$A$i$b>e<j$/$$$+$J$+$C$?>l9g!$(B\command{patch}$B$O(Bhunk$B$,%j%8%'%/%H$5$l$?$H(B
+$B$$$&%a%C%;!<%8$rI=<($9$k!%%3%^%s%I$O%j%8%'%/%H$5$l$?(Bhunk$B!J$"$k$$$OC1$K(B
+``rejects''$B!K$rF1L>$G3HD%;R(B\sfilename{.rej}$B$N%U%!%$%k$K%;!<%V$9$k!%%3%^%s(B
+$B%I$OF1;~$KL5JQ99$N%U%!%$%k$r(B\sfilename{.orig}$B$H$$$&3HD%;R$G%;!<%V$9$k!#3H(B
+$BD%;R$N$J$$%U%!%$%k$N%3%T!<$O!$(Bhunk$B$+$i%/%j!<%s$KE,MQ$5$l$?JQ99$rA4$F4^$`!%(B
+\filename{foo}$B$H$$$&%U%!%$%k$rJQ99$9$k(B6$B$D$N(Bhunk$B$r4^$`%Q%C%A%U%!%$%k$,$"$j!$(B
+$B$=$NFb$N(B1$B$D$,E,MQ$G$-$J$+$C$?$H$9$k$H!$L5JQ99$N%U%!%$%k(B
+\filename{foo.orig}$B!$(Bhunk1$B$D$r4^$`%U%!%$%k(B\filename{foo.rej}$B!$@5$7$/E,MQ(B
+$B$5$l$?(B5$B$D$N(Bhunk$B$r4^$`%U%!%$%k(B\filename{foo}$B$,@8@.$5$l$k!%(B

 %\subsection{Some quirks of patch representation}
 \subsection{$B%Q%C%AI=8=$N4qL/$JE@(B}

-There are a few useful things to know about how \command{patch} works
-with files.
+%There are a few useful things to know about how \command{patch} works
+%with files.
+%\begin{itemize}
+%\item This should already be obvious, but \command{patch} cannot
+%  handle binary files.
+%\item Neither does it care about the executable bit; it creates new
+%  files as readable, but not executable.
+%\item \command{patch} treats the removal of a file as a diff between
+%  the file to be removed and the empty file.  So your idea of ``I
+%  deleted this file'' looks like ``every line of this file was
+%  deleted'' in a patch.
+%\item It treats the addition of a file as a diff between the empty
+%  file and the file to be added.  So in a patch, your idea of ``I
+%  added this file'' looks like ``every line of this file was added''.
+%\item It treats a renamed file as the removal of the old name, and the
+%  addition of the new name.  This means that renamed files have a big
+%  footprint in patches.  (Note also that Mercurial does not currently
+%  try to infer when files have been renamed or copied in a patch.)
+%\item \command{patch} cannot represent empty files, so you cannot use
+%  a patch to represent the notion ``I added this empty file to the
+%  tree''.
+%\end{itemize}
+
+\command{patch}$B$,%U%!%$%k$K$I$N$h$&$K:nMQ$9$k$+!$M-MQ$JE@$r$$$/$D$+=R$Y(B
+$B$k!%(B
 \begin{itemize}
-\item This should already be obvious, but \command{patch} cannot
-  handle binary files.
-\item Neither does it care about the executable bit; it creates new
-  files as readable, but not executable.
-\item \command{patch} treats the removal of a file as a diff between
-  the file to be removed and the empty file.  So your idea of ``I
-  deleted this file'' looks like ``every line of this file was
-  deleted'' in a patch.
-\item It treats the addition of a file as a diff between the empty
-  file and the file to be added.  So in a patch, your idea of ``I
-  added this file'' looks like ``every line of this file was added''.
-\item It treats a renamed file as the removal of the old name, and the
-  addition of the new name.  This means that renamed files have a big
-  footprint in patches.  (Note also that Mercurial does not currently
-  try to infer when files have been renamed or copied in a patch.)
-\item \command{patch} cannot represent empty files, so you cannot use
-  a patch to represent the notion ``I added this empty file to the
-  tree''.
+ \item $B$9$G$KL@Gr$@$,!$(B\command{patch}$B$O%P%$%J%j%U%!%$%k$r07$&$3$H$O$G$-(B
+       $B$J$$!%(B
+ \item $B<B9T%S%C%H$r9MN8$7$J$$$@$1$G$J$/!$?7$7$$%U%!%$%k$rFI$_<h$j2DG=B0(B
+       $B@-$G:n@.$7!$<B9T2DG=B0@-$OIU$1$J$$!%(B
+ \item \command{patch}$B%3%^%s%I$O%U%!%$%k$N:o=|$r:o=|$5$l$k%U%!%$%k$HCf?H(B
+       $B$,$+$i$N%U%!%$%k$H$N:9J,$H$7$F07$&!%=>$C$F!$%U%!%$%k$r:o=|$9$k$H$$(B
+       $B$&$3$H$O!$%Q%C%A%U%!%$%k$NCf$G$O%U%!%$%k$NCf$NA4$F$N9T$r:o=|$9$k$3(B
+       $B$H$HEy2A$G$"$k!%(B
+ \item \command{patch}$B%3%^%s%I$O%U%!%$%k$NDI2C$r6u$N%U%!%$%k$HDI2C$5$l$k(B
+       $B%U%!%$%k$N:9J,$H$7$F07$&!%=>$C$F%U%!%$%k$NDI2C$O%Q%C%A%U%!%$%k$NCf(B
+       $B$G$O%U%!%$%k$KA4$F$N9T$rDI2C$9$k$3$H$HEy2A$G$"$k!%(B
+ \item \command{patch}$B%3%^%s%I$OL>A0$NJQ99$5$l$?%U%!%$%k$r5lL>$N%U%!%$%k(B
+       $B$N:o=|$H?7$7$$%U%!%$%k$NDI2C$H$7$F07$&!%=>$C$FL>A0$NJQ99$5$l$?%U%!(B
+       $B%$%k$O%Q%C%AFb$GBg$-$J%U%C%H%W%j%s%H$r@j$a$k!%!J(BMercurial$B$O8=:_$N(B
+       $B$H$3$m!$%Q%C%AFb$G%U%!%$%k$,%j%M!<%`$5$l$?$N$+!$%3%T!<$5$l$?$N$+(B
+       $B$r4XCN$7$J$$!K(B
+ \item \command{patch}$B%3%^%s%I$OCf?H$N6u$N%U%!%$%k$rI=8=$G$-$J$$!%=>$C$F(B
+       $B%Q%C%A%U%!%$%k$r!V6u$N%U%!%$%k$r%D%j!<$KDI2C$9$k!W$H$$$&MQES$K;H(B
+       $B$&$3$H$O$G$-$J$$!%(B
 \end{itemize}

 %\subsection{Beware the fuzz}
@@ -928,10 +972,22 @@
 be completely successful, these inexact techniques naturally leave
 open the possibility of corrupting the patched file.  The most common
 cases typically involve applying a patch twice, or at an incorrect
-location in the file.  If \command{patch} or \hgxcmd{mq}{qpush} ever
+location in the file.
+
+If \command{patch} or \hgxcmd{mq}{qpush} ever
 mentions an offset or fuzz factor, you should make sure that the
 modified files are correct afterwards.

+$B$"$k%*%U%;%C%H$d(Bfuzz factor$B$N0LCV$X$N(Bhunk$B$NE,MQ$OB?$/$N>l9gA4$/LdBj$J$/@.(B
+$B8y$9$k$,!$IT@53N$J%^%C%A$rMQ$$$?>l9g!$%Q%C%A$rE,MQ$7$?%U%!%$%k$r2u$7$F$$(B
+$B$k2DG=@-$,;D$k!%(B
+
+$B%Q%C%A$rFsEYE,MQ$7$?$j!$%U%!%$%k$N4V0c$C$?>l=j$KE,MQ$7$F$7$^$&$N$,0lHV$h(B
+$B$/$"$k4V0c$$$@!%(B
+
+
+
+
 It's often a good idea to refresh a patch that has applied with an
 offset or fuzz factor; refreshing the patch generates new context
 information that will make it apply cleanly.  I say ``often,'' not