Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:07:31 +0300, /Daniel Shahaf/:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:38 +0200, "Johan Corveleyn" wrote:
>> No, I don't think that's correct.
>> --ignore-space-change: ignores changes in the amount of white-space,
>> but not ignoring "all white-space". This means that "having no
>> white-space" in not considered equal to "having white-space". Example:
>> "abc def" is considered equal to "abc def", but not equal to
>> --ignore-all-space: ignores all differences in white-space, including
>> between "having no white-space" and "having white-space". I.e. "abc
>> def" is considered equal to "abcdef".
>> The above two only apply to white-space, not to eol-style, if I'm not
> Thanks for the correction, Johan. (I haven't tested your theory
> either, but I assumed you'd jump in if I were spreading
> misinformation about the diff code.)
>> So the --ignore-eol-style is orthogonal.
>> Can't you just use both options?
>> svn diff / blame -x --ignore-space-change -x --ignore-eol-style
>> Or, with the short option for ignoring space-change:
>> svn diff / blame -x-b -x--ignore-eol-style
> And here I thought the syntax would be
> svn $subcommand -x "--ignore-space-change --ignore-eol-style"
> though, of course, if your syntax works I'll use it from now on
> (because it's more easily parseable).
That's what I've found, also. Thank you both Johan and Daniel, for
helping me figuring it out.
Received on 2011-04-21 06:16:54 CEST