[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: More on "arch" (our competition)

From: Zack Weinberg <zack_at_codesourcery.com>
Date: 2002-01-17 19:14:56 CET

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:49:27PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
>
>
> The other format we should all look at is Bitkeeper's; Tom may
> already have done that?
>
> Sorry, no.

IIRC, Bitkeeper did not have an extended diff format that was human
readable.

Personally, I would suggest that an extended diff should resemble a
shell script closely enough that it could be applied to an exported
tree by running it. Metadata not present in an exported tree could
be carried along by making it look like comments to sh, and arch or
subversion would still be able to find it.

arch's patch format is an entire directory tree (unless I've missed
something) - this is useless: an extended diff has to be something
that can be inserted into the body of an e-mail message. Attached is
not good enough. There are lots of people who flat out refuse to use
MIME attachments.

zw

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:57 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.