> From: sussman@collab.net [mailto:sussman@collab.net]
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 4:13 PM
> "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,
I certainly hope not. I do not wish to end up with yet another 'libsvn_wc'...
> or are people actually going to sit down and design the format first?
Yes please. But we shouldn't let 1.0 depend on this _at all_.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Apr 6 19:36:05 2003