Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:22:12PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois a écrit : > According to a quick look at the diff wikipedia page[1], unified diffs > appeared in GNU diff 1.15, released in January 1991. > > 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff > > Time to move on?
Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:22:14PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi a écrit : > > The disadvantages: we need to build a lot of tools to test quality > of our packages. I think handling different diff format will > decrement the quality of such tests. Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 06:56:05PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit : > > They're easier to review (because you have a bit of context) and to > adapt to sources where they don't apply 100%. Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:23:11PM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : > > 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. So to summarise, you are suggesting me to write upstream that: 1) We want to review their patches, 2) We can not do this with context diffs, 3) We do want to actively reject non-unified diffs despite our tools work well with them, 4) The reason why they should adopt a new diff format is because it is new. May I have some evidence that somebody really wants to review their patch? As I explained already, it is not a random patch grabbed from their BTS, it is their standard way to publish official corrections that change a few lines in an archive of 20 Mo. I do not think there is more reason to review this patch than any other change that they make when they release a new version. What is next? Will the Project decide a standard whitespace policy and nitpick every upstream project that does not respect it? The only patch review system I know in Debian works well with context diffs (http://patch-tracking.debian.net/package/emboss/6.1.0-2). Quilt, patch, diffstat, all work well with context diff. dpkg-dev itself works well with context diffs. The only reason it fails is that there is a political decision to reject non-unified diffs. I have moved the patches from debian/patches to debian/patch, which circumvents the problem, since there is no will to compromise on either side. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
