2009/11/17 Martin Furter <mf_at_rola.ch>:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Branko Cibej wrote:
>> Mike Samuel wrote:
>>> 2009/11/17 Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>:
>>>> Mike Samuel wrote:
>>>>> Source code is explicitly not considered human readable.
>>>> Recalling some horrors I've had to review, I even tend to agree ... but
>>>> it's a strange policy nonetheless. I wonder what kind of rationale they
>>>> have for it.
>>> I think making a distinction between human readable content and source
>>> code is fine. But the distinction was not made consistently from the
>>> beginning so it's led to confusion.
>>> And if they're going to make such a distinction, usually it helps to
>>> distinguish between source code that's meant to be read and source
>>> code for a language that has no separate compilation stage that is
>>> meant to be delivered to an interpreter. I think this echoes bsmith's
>>> two flavors of XML in the previous thread.
>>> What do you think of the property name, "svn:merge-mode," and the
>>> values ("none" "simple")?
>> The property name is descriptive enough, so is the "none"; don't have a
>> quibble there. I do think "simple" is a bit too simple. :) It's a
>> line-based contextual merge; dunno what would be a better short name for
>> that, maybe "patch"?
> Yeah, I thought the same.
> What about "line-based"?
> To me that sounds descriptive enough and not too long :)
Should we collect a bunch of names and put it to a vote?
So far we have "line-based," "patch," and "simple."
I guess I can start implementing in the meantime.
Is svn_mime_type_is_binary in subversion/include/svn_types.h the right
place to start?
If so, I'll try renaming that and adding a second merge mode parameter
and then threading the merge mode through from clients.
I was looking under subversion/tests/libsvn_subr for tests of that
function, but the word binary doesn't seem to exists anywhere there
outside comments. Should I just create a new validate_test.c in that
Received on 2009-11-18 02:58:02 CET