[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: summer of code 2007

From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev_at_farside.org.uk>
Date: 2007-03-14 10:03:15 CET

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:52:55PM +0100, Charles Acknin wrote:
> Right, why not having one single 'svn diff' that outputs one single
> rich-format that is backward compatible with patch(1)? What's the
> point of having one more "other format" if the rich-format fulfills
> patch(1) and 'svn patch' needs?

I answered this more fully elsethread, but briefly: the current output
from 'svn diff' isn't compatible with patch(1) in some cases, so we need
at least two formats. We've deliberately made those decisions so that
'diff' is more useful for reviewing some of the tree changes you can
make, before you commit.

It may also make sense to make the extra tree-delta information optional
in the output, which gives us a third format.


  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Wed Mar 14 10:03:29 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.