Er, this is why you want a clean sandbox to review changes in. I'm with Henry, I would like to see both.
(With emacs, it is very easy to look at the elements of the tar file and ediff them against the originals without ever unpacking the tar file. So at least for that case, the tar file is easier than the patch file. The patch file is nice for a simple change because for that case you can just look at the diff and complete the review.) On 2006-09-11, at 18:20 EDT, Benjamin Shine wrote: > We should send diffs of modified files and a tar with added files. > If we send just the tar without the diffs, then applying the patch > could irretrievably nuke local changes. > > On Sep 11, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Henry Minsky wrote: > >> That's a good idea. We should still ship the diff file though. >> >> >> On 9/11/06, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: >> What do you think about replacing the use of patch in svn- >> makechangepackage with tar? It seems we keep having to work around >> the fact that patch doesn't do the right thing for moved or added >> files, meaning the reviewee has to by hand bundle up their changes. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Laszlo-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev >> >> >> >> -- >> Henry Minsky >> Software Architect >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > _______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
