Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006, Sander Striker wrote:
[...]
>>>My concern is, besides rooneg's good point about being able to use the GNU
>>>diff option names, that we may bloat our own "option space", especially if
>>>we want more diff options later.
>>
>>While this is true, I feel that we are jumping through hoops to not have
>>subcommand specific options. In case of diff, merge (and maybe blame) these
>>are almost unavoidable (with exception of the long option names ofcourse).
>
> I don't understand what you're getting at in the last paragraph. I think
> if we don't got he -x route, we should just include long option names for
> these,
+1.
> even though it seems like the short forms are available (at least
> for the cmdline client). I have no strong feeling about this. Do others
> have an opinion?
It would be nice to have short options available for diff/merge/...,
without having them lost for other purposes. But this would break our
contract of having short options mean the same with all subcommands.
That was what I was getting add. But maybe it's best to just leave the
short options for now. IOW, now I think about it more I agree with
Garrett.
[...]
> Since we're not outputting the normalized lines, there is no difference.
> If we implement --ignore-eol-style, we want to keep some eol marker to
> differentiate the case of no newline at end of file.
Yes, that's the point. I consider the newline at EOF significant enough
not to strip.
> If we just do --ignore-eol, we can just drop the eol marker completely
> when normalizing as brane suggests. Maybe that's more useful.
I don't see that as more useful, just as slightly easier to implement.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Feb 5 23:19:38 2006