Pete Gonzalez wrote:
> It's been a year and svnlook still has "almost no options at all", so I
> am posting an update of my --no-diff patch for release 1.4.3.
>
> Below are some relevant excerpts from the previous discussion. The
> redux seemed to be that people wanted me to either (1) use something
> other than svnlook to create diffs or (2) invent lots of other similar
> switches to provide a generalized context for --no-diff. After having
> had a year to reflect on this, I still feel that the original proposal
> is reasonable and worth revisiting.
Pete,
Thanks for the patch! Although I haven't had a chance to review it, I
do have a couple of suggestions. First, your patch stands a much better
chance of getting some attention from a reviewer if you include a log
message along with it. See the relevant portions of HACKING[1] for more
details.
Second, when referring to previous threads on the list, it is much
easier for the readers if you just post the address to the relevant
message in the list archive. Most of the developers use the archive
here[2]. Otherwise, it may be difficult to see where the old
conversation ends and the new one begins, and your patch may get lost in
the noise.
Perhaps you can post your patch again, following these guidelines?
Thanks,
-Hyrum
[1] http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#log-messages
[2] http://svn.haxx.se/dev/
Received on Sat Apr 7 20:33:08 2007