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

Re: augmented diff, draft now mature

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: 2007-07-04 22:43:48 CEST

Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> Q: How do you correctly apply an svndiff if you don't have the source
> revision where it came from?
> A: You can't, because svndiff is based on a block-delta algorithm and
> does not contain the necessary context.
> Q: How do you correctly apply an svndiff patch offline even if you do
> have the source revision?
> A: See answer to the previous question.
> Q: How do you apply tree modifications if their description consists of
> editor commands only?
> A: You can't, because editor commands don't carry any context -- they're
> like the '+' and '-' lines in a unidiff, without the not-so-unimportant
> surrounding bits.
> (Q: Why do I have to keep pointing this out? A: Mu! :p )

Regarding the application of binary diffs: I thought that Charles knew
this, and that he was simply punting on applying binary diffs to
anything other than the exact source file to which they were meant to
be applied (as for text files, for which context is useable, those
diffs come from section 1 of the format, and are represented in
unidiff format not svndiff).

I didn't quite follow your point about applying tree modifications via
editor commands. True, we don't have any way of representing context
or handling fuzziness in tree rearrangements, but that's a Subversion
problem in general. The question is, would the proposed format
preclude the addition of features to handle fuzziness later? If it
would, what's a better format?

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jul 4 22:44:20 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.