Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:38:27 -0800 | From | Josh MacDonald <> | Subject | Re: diff format |
| |
Quoting Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com): > : 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.
Xdelta's license is the same as diffutils, if you were already executing diff then it would be straightforward to replace the commands, or perhaps allow several patch formats.
-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/
| |