Derek Robert Price writes: > > Hrm. `-s' would seem to be roughly equivalent to diff's `--brief', so
Only roughly -- the output format is quite different (I would argue that patch's is much nicer). Don't forget that people have been known to parse the output from CVS. > you mean `-t' to generate a patch between the last two revisions is > useful? That too. > I suppose we'd be removing rdiff's default implication of `diff > -uN', but that could be replaced with the addition of a `--patch' option > to `cvs diff' as a shortcut for `-uN'. Actually, the default is -cN (sort-of; patch creates the empty file itself rather than passing -N to diff). Think of the problems changing the default would cause both for users (who type without thinking) and for scripts. Perhaps we should consider splitting patch from rdiff rather than having them be synonyms. Unfortunately, rdiff is the canonical name and that's the one we'd want to change the behavior of. -Larry Jones Even my FRIENDS don't do what I want. -- Calvin _______________________________________________ Bug-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
