kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> writes:
>> Also I should think we ought to say explicitly that tree-change
>> information should be included in the output in an unambiguous form
>> that might be usable by a hypothetical tree-aware Patch program, and
>> can certainly be used by a human.
>
> In the past, this has always gotten bogged down in the realization
> that we need to consult with a zillion other version control projects
> and come up with a common patch format that supports tree- and
> metadata-changes as well as straight diff data. In other words, a
> patch format that supports the union of all the operations all these
> version control systems support.
>
> This is perfectly possible, of course, just hard.
>
> Do we want to give up on that goal? Do we want to come up with our
> own parseable format that we know will work for Subversion, and then
> later if a common patch format develops (with or without our
> involvement), we can add an option to produce it?
How about just coming up with a proposed format, and then float it
among the other projects for comments? IMHO, nothing will happen
until someone writes it up - the rest is "easy", you just tweak
things until everything is covered, and if you can't reach agreement
then you'll at least have something that will work for Subversion.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw dot com
Internet Printing and Publishing Software http://www.easysw.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 10 19:06:18 2005