Re: More on "arch" (our competition)

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:11:54AM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 01:25:37PM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > that's a neat idea, but subversion runs on windows, and it would be
> > nice to not have to require something like cygwin. if our patch
> > format is based in /bin/sh, that sort of ties us to unix like os's.
>
> Just 'cos it could be executed as a shell script doesn't mean you have
> to use /bin/sh to interpret it. Lines such as
>
> mv 'old.c' 'new.c'
>
> or
>
> patch 'edited.c' <<\EOF
> ... patch here ...
> EOF
>
> can be parsed perfectly easily by a custom patch-applying program. In
> fact, I was assuming that you would write a custom program, so that it
> could pick up metadata too, which would be hidden from sh with
> comments. A complete patch might look like this:

<snip the actual example>

ahh, in that case it sounds like a cool idea to me. consider the objection
withdrawn.

-garrett

-- 
garrett rooney                     Unix was not designed to stop you from 
rooneg@electricjellyfish.net       doing stupid things, because that would  
http://electricjellyfish.net/      stop you from doing clever things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org