lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.022 / U:0.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site