Messages in this thread | | | From | (Larry McVoy) | Subject | Re: diff format | Date | Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:50:12 -0800 |
| |
: 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.
Yup, you're right and you raise some good points. There is no reason why the diff -n stuff couldn't use xdelta instead, in fact, that would probably be a far more compact answer.
: 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.
Yes, this is all true. If you want to talk about having BitKeeper use xdelta as a transmission format, I'd be very open to that, I think it is a great idea.
- 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/
| |