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

Re: Patch command execution

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2002-02-08 17:22:06 CET

Daniel Berlin <dan@dberlin.org> writes:
> Maybe it's just me, but it's pretty clear we're gonna end up with an
> even split here, half in favor of inserting markers into the file,
> half in favor of not doing it.
> Thus, I say we implement both behaviors, arbitrarily choose one as the
> default, and make it clear in a quick-start guide (or whatever) how to
> easily switch to the other.

That was the conclusion I had come to as well, yeah. :-) We can just
pass an option through to `diff3', that's not a problem

However, the choice of default is still important. We may just have
to vote on that one (again, because interface issue, a full-list
vote). I do prefer this switchable behavior to storing the
conflict-markered fulltext in the .rej file.

IF there's a way to invoke `patch' such that it takes the .rej file as
input and patches the working file to have both sides of each hunk,
delimited by conflict markers, then defaulting to .rej files is great,
and those of us who prefer conflict markers can get them easily.
Does anyone know of a way to do that? I don't see one in a quick
glance through patch's options, in which case I'd vote for conflict
markers as the default. :-)


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:05 2006

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.