Hi Matt, On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:25:19AM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote: > I'd have said that it would be more sensible to define a reasonable subset > of quilt features. A set of patches with comments at the top and a
yes, this sounds reasonable. But I'm not a quilt user and therefore don't know which features it support that may be useful for others too. But editting patches in a prepared environment seems to be common to all patch systems, so at least I have anything I need ;-) Can't speak for others, though. > series file can be manipulated by many tools, isn't really > quilt-specific. Indeed. After all the series file is just a text file. > Allowing obscure quilt-only features wasn't what I'd > understood from the discussion. Neither did I. I just thought that it could have some features that make it so much better then dpatch, which could actually make up the reason why everybody is crying "damn dpatch, glorify quilt". So now everybody says that they are *not* even talking about the tool, but instead about the quilt *format* as an interchange format. That doesn't appear to be logical, because there seems not to be a big difference between the two "exchange formats" but indeed between the tools. I was just wondering and I am still. Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
