Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:03:50PM +0200, Neels Janosch Hofmeyr wrote:
>> Hi Arfrever, Stsp,
>> would you guys be fine with the attached patch? Calling that thing
>> "diff_editor" got me confused there for a while.
>> Furthermore, could you explain why you chuck the local svnpatch_* functions
>> into an (also local) svn_delta_editor_t in the first place? It makes much
>> more sense to me to just call them directly without the editor struct.
> I'm fine with this patch.
> But I'd also like to point out (again) that I don't like the fact that
> "patch" implements its own editor. Because that duplicates a lot of code,
> and it's hard to maintain in the long term.
Which editor in particular are you referring to?
> E.g. it's not clear to me yet whether the patch editor should be caring
> about tree conflicts, for example, which the update and merge editors do.
> Maybe patch should somehow re-use the merge editor.
> I've been told this is impossible with the current API.
> Anyway I think we should solve this problem before the patch feature
> gets released. So I hope that the code you're patching will be obsoleted
> eventually. But maybe that's just me :)
Clarifying: `svn patch' applies a patch file to a working copy, right?
So why is there "svnpatch" code in diff? Because `merge' also uses the diff
framework, or because `svn patch' also needs to do stuff during `svn diff'?
And, how does all this relate to your comments above? I'm not really
grokking the interactions yet.
I'm on the ambitious path of trying to disentangle diff from merge in the
process of enabling arbitrary diffs and introducing editor v2... I'm still
at the drawing board, so I'm grateful for any details you've got :)
Received on 2009-06-04 17:16:38 CEST