kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> writes:
>
>>Also I should think we ought to say explicitly that tree-change
>>information should be included in the output in an unambiguous form
>>that might be usable by a hypothetical tree-aware Patch program, and
>>can certainly be used by a human.
>
> In the past, this has always gotten bogged down in the realization
> that we need to consult with a zillion other version control projects
[...]
I put the words "might" and "hypothetical" in there on purpose. What I meant
is that we should make a quick stab at writing output that states tree changes
in a human-readable way that is not needlessly unparseable or incomplete, but
we should not expend significant time and effort trying to design a "proper"
tree-diff solution now before fixing the current "diff" problems.
> Do we want to give up on that goal? Do we want to come up with our
> own parseable format that we know will work for Subversion, and then
> later if a common patch format develops (with or without our
> involvement), we can add an option to produce it?
That's not a bad intermediate goal.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 11 01:36:41 2005