On 3/14/07, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/07, David Anderson <dave@natulte.net> wrote:
> > Don't mind me, I'm on crack and completely and utterly misread the
> > entire reply. +1 on what Malcolm says, with the exception that I'd
> > like `svn patch` as a subcommand, not as Yet Another Tool.
>
> I've been trying to parse Malcolm's email and I'm coming to the same
> conclusion Dave initially did. What bit of clue am I missing here?
>
> In other words, how does Malcolm's 'svn diff' outputting something
> that patch(1) purposely can't read a good idea? I don't like the idea
> of breaking patch(1)-compatible diffs without an explicit flag. (I'm
> mildly against making that a config option as C-Mike suggested.) --
> justin
I think we need to have someone specify all requirements for the patch
format that come from the fact that we version directory trees. If
with those requirements the output cannot be applied with patch(1),
but *can* look a lot like a unidiff, then I think this discussion is
moot.
What I'd like is someone (Charles?) to come up with a proposal which
addresses all situations that can arise from versioning trees. Then we
can discuss that proposal - instead of the current situation of
venting preferences - and after discussing, we probably have a vote on
it, because this is one of those subjects where you can't make
everybody happy... (IMO)
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 14 08:20:06 2007