Re: More on "arch" (our competition)

> I agree about e-mail, but not about useless. For example, you can
> send a tree as a uuencoded tar file.

       Not if you want the recipient to read it before applying.

I very much want that -- which is part of the reason I like the arch
patch set format: because it is trivially machine readable, tools for
patch reviewers can generate conveniently formatted reports that
explain what each patch set does. Follow the "change history" links
at www.regexps.com for some examples.

For a large patch set, the output of such tools is better than
scanning an email message. For a trivial patch, ordinary diff output
is sufficient.

        Embedding and compiling a program at patch-application time is
        out of the question.

Sure. But if you are going to make a shell script for exact patching,
you only need one such script and it can be completely generic.
There's no reason to fold the script together with each patch set.

-t

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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