Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes: > Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:45:00PM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : > > > > The point, rather, seems to be that unified-diff format is the de > > facto standard format for exchanging patch information. > > Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:53:21AM +0200, Michael Banck a écrit : > > > > It's the preferred format for 99% of all Free Software work/projects > > AFAICT. > > In my workplace's cafeteria, 99 % of the people eat curry rice with a > spoon, and 1 % with chopsticks. But this is causing no trouble
Right, because an individual's use of spoon or chopsticks to eat their own meal isn't about interaction *between* people; it's a private choice that affects only that individual. The analogy doesn't hold for this discussion, since this is about data interchange formats, which affects *all* parties in the transaction. See how far you'd get with expecting accommodation of 1% of people using a different form of currency to pay for their curry rice. > I am all for campaigning for the unified diff format if there are > arguments on which I can base a discussion with Upstream, but a mere > cultural preference, be it the one of a very large majority, is a too > weak argument. Standard data interchange formats is such an argument: one which you even quoted me as putting forth. The de facto standard data format for interchange of patch data is unified-diff format. -- \ “Well, my brother says Hello. So, hooray for speech therapy.” | `\ —Emo Philips | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
