Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
> On Sunday, April 6, 2003, at 11:37 AM, SteveKing wrote:
>
> > If the patch file doesn't have to be in a text like format so
> > the user can read it then why not do this:
>
> if the patch isn't in text format, you're going to see a large
> resistance to using it from most open source developers. mailing off
> a patch to a mailing list works well because one can just glance at it
> and see what it's doing. if your proposed solution is something
> opaque (or even just cryptic text like the old xml stuff we had back
> in the day), it seems like a showstopper to me.
Yeah, I agree.
Steve, I'm not sure you know this... but in the very early days of
Subversion, we didn't have a repository at all. 'svn commit' actually
wrote out a tree-delta into an XML file, and 'svn update' read and
applied the XML file to the working copy. Our XML file, was, in
effect, a tree-aware patch format. Exactly as you descirbe.
But it contained binary data (svndiff), and wasn't very easy to read.
There was no way we could inflict our XML DTD as a "standard".
Ultimately that code got deleted once we had a working repository. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Apr 6 18:08:35 2003