Matthieu Moy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Don't use diff. bzr supports "bundles" (in bzr.dev only), which is > mostly a patch plus some annotation, which is sufficient for bzr to > rebuild the revision completely on the other side. > > DVC can help to use the bzr features here, but should not reimplement > its own.
What other information is really needed in order to rebuild a
revision? We already include the log message in the commit email -- I
can't think of anything else.
I propose that instead of having multiple formats to send patches, we
should converge on using a single diff file.
Benefits:
1. It would be easier for most upstream authors to read.
2. Because of (1), patches sent would have a greater chance of being
accepted.
3. When upstream changes version control systems, pending patches
could follow them more easily.
4. Mail clients and newsreaders can handle diff files better, since
they have an associated MIME type already.
5. It would make the process of writing submit routines for new
backends significantly easier.
6. Expanding on (5), we could even factor out some common routines
into dvc-submit.el or dvc-utils.el and add some useful
abstraction.
--
Michael Olson -- FSF Associate Member #652 -- http://www.mwolson.org/
Interests: Emacs Lisp, text markup, protocols -- Jabber: mwolson_at_hcoop.net
/` |\ | | | IRC: mwolson on freenode.net: #hcoop, #muse, #PurdueLUG
|_] | \| |_| Project involvement: Emacs, Muse, Planner, ERC, EMMS
pgpSbVuZeCDiI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dvc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/dvc-dev
