On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 01:02:43PM -0700, Eric Gillespie wrote:
> "Charles Acknin" <email@example.com> writes:
> > - we don't want 'svn diff' default behaviour (designed more for
> > patch review than for patch(1) use) to be changed -- 'default'
> > - because of 'default' design, we need another format that really
> > fits with a patch(1) use -- 'unidiff'
> The existing format already works with patch, as can any new
> format we come up with, so long as we still use unidiff for
> actual text diffs; patch ignores everything else. Since the
(Note that the existing format does not produce valid patch(1) input for
e.g. copy-with-history operations. I'm not sure whether you were
suggesting that it did, or whether you were just saying that we could
make the unidiff parts unidiff, and use the tree-deltas part in preference).
As Charles said, there are effectively three use cases for diff:
- the current output, suitable for code reviews (and semi-working for
- patch(1)-specific output, differing from the previous version in
only a few minor ways (directory deletes, copy-with-history).
- an svn-specific-tree-aware patch output.
Received on Tue Jun 26 11:59:24 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored