Re: svn_client_patch()

"Sander Striker" <striker@apache.org> writes:

> >>>> Someday, if/when we have a patch format that does more than
> >>>> conventional patch format, then we can consider a new tool.
> >
> > That was what I was asking for - a patch format which also includes
> > the log message.
>
> And includes renames, copies, additions and deletions... and properties
> (and possibly even merge history, but that could be in properties aswell).

This all feels pretty arbitrary to me. Cmpilato wants to add property
support to 'svn patch'. SteveKing wants to add log message support.
But the *ultimate* goal is a patch format that does much more than
that -- as Sander says: understands add, rm, copy, move.

So where do you draw the line when defining this new patch format? Do
you implement 'svn patch' with just one of these features? Two of
them?

I'm asking a sort of meta-question here: is this one of those
situations where the new patch format is just going to sort of
'evolve' by feature creep, or are people actually going to sit down
and design the format first?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Apr 6 16:14:29 2003