On 9/8/07, Charles Acknin <charlesacknin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/8/07, David Glasser <glasser@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> > Hmm. So, what I mean is, the "+ blabla" change is also encoded inside
> > the 'eJzTUMgvSM3TLcrPL' bytes, right?
>
> No it wasn't designed this way. (I'm now wondering whether Mark did
> also think this way). In the part III of the design doc, it's
> explained what's in each part of the patch. Basically, there's
> nothing *twice* in the patch (but property changes) for the sake of
> redundancy. This also avoids any discrepancy with both information
> being synchronized: what if the user changes the unidiff part of a
> patch and tries to apply with 'svn patch'? He might think 'svn patch'
> is going to handle it properly, where this is not the case yet as 'svn
> patch' doesn't read the unidiff part. I really think each information
> should live in the patch once. I made a special case with properties
> since it's really helpful to have them displayed in cleartext.
>
> But hey, if people think it's better to include text changes in the
> svnpatch block too so that 'svn patch' can handle it all, let's do it
I am still completely confused.
Let's say I just edit 5 normal files (java/c etc..) No adds or copies
or anything.
Can I make an "svnpatch" and apply it with just svn patch?
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Sep 8 19:05:58 2007