"Mark Phippard" wrote
> I am not going to bother to quote any of the previous messages. I just
> want to say that there was a discussion about this on the Subversion dev@
> list last month. Basically, to make a new patch file format that could
> express all of Subversions features. It sounded like some people were
> going to work on the idea. I would recommend pursuing it from that angle,
> and updating TortoiseMerge when such a patch file format actually
> develops.
I agree in principle, but the only timescale (or version-scale) I could see
in the threads was around SVN 2.0. It does not appear anywhere in the
roadmap yet.
I am *not* proposing to start developing any sort of new patch format here,
just making use of what is already happening informally, namely prefixing a
log message to the unified diff. Also, warning the user about bits which
will not work because the present patch format doesn't support it.
If the new patch format comes out, then some of that work wil be redundant,
but not all. Whatever the patch format, it would still be useful to have a
commit style dialog to select what goes into the patch, and there will still
need to be some way of transferring log comments from the patch file into
the comment history, because a patch does not imply an immediate commit.
Certainly the changes I was proposing are not a high priority, so it is just
a question of balancing the wait for a new format against any wasted effort
in producing a stopgap.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 8 11:22:19 2004