Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:52:21 -0800 | From | Josh MacDonald <> | Subject | Re: diff format |
| |
In article <fa.ga2f2lv.1k2kart@ifi.uio.no>, lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) wrote: > : > Folks, I need to get your read on something quickly. I'd like to use the > : > diff -n format for BitKeeper patches. I suspect that many will have an > : > issue with this because these patches are pretty useless to human beings. > : > Linus especially will not like this. > : > : It's not about "like". > : > : I will totally refuse to touch _any_ diff format that does not have > : context. > > That's great because that's exactly what I want :-) > But I suspect that you meant something else. So let's hash this out, > because it is crucial to the correct operation of the system. The short > summary is that I believe that you will be happy.
In earlier discussions you've expressed a distaste for the xdelta file format, but now you can't justify it anymore. Can you comment on this? It seems like you've changed your operational model.
You begin by saying that you want context diffs, but that now you intend to use diff -n for transmission. That's because (I suspect) you can't guarantee a patch's idempotency with contextual information. You can't guarantee much with only a patch, but since you also record a patch's parent version the diff format is unimportant. The remainder of your posting was off the original topic, as far as I can tell. Is it now your position that any diff format is acceptable for transmission, so long as the user can view diffs in any format they like?
-josh
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |