Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Michael G Schwern
On 2011.1.27 11:59 PM, Neil Brewitt wrote: > Thanks for a sensible response. To be clear - I wasn't comparing with any > other > modern systems, just responding to the absolute slandering of a tool You, sir, are on the wrong list. -- Insulting our readers is part of our business model.

Code review every commit (was Re: GNU diff)

2011-01-27 Thread Michael G Schwern
On 2011.1.28 4:22 AM, Marco Von Ballmoos wrote: > We also use code reviews, so rolling back committed changes never really came > up. > Usually, problems were discovered only after several other commits had been > made > whereupon it was just easier to fix the fix and check in the new change rath

Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Neil Brewitt
On 27 Jan 2011, at 14:47, Tony Finch wrote: Oh man, and there was I thinking you were trying to be satirical. I especially laughed at your advice on reverting changes. "Boldly going forward 'cause we can't find reverse!" Tony, I'm always happy to present hard empirical data to hates-softwar

Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Marco Von Ballmoos
On Jan 27, 2011, at 3:47 PM, Tony Finch wrote: On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Neil Brewitt wrote: Thanks for a sensible response. To be clear - I wasn't comparing with any other modern systems, just responding to the absolute slandering of a tool I've seen used very effectively by hundreds of very compe

Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Tony Finch
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Neil Brewitt wrote: > > Thanks for a sensible response. To be clear - I wasn't comparing with > any other modern systems, just responding to the absolute slandering of > a tool I've seen used very effectively by hundreds of very competent > developers. Oh man, and there was I

Re: Subversion Lifetime Achievement Award (was Re: GNU diff)

2011-01-27 Thread Martin Ebourne
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 10:03 +1000, Michael G Schwern wrote: > Of course you don't need branching, merging is hard so you've never branched. > Of course you don't revert, reversions are hard so you don't revert. Of > course you don't make tiny commits, every commit is inflicted on the whole > proj

Subversion Lifetime Achievement Award (was Re: GNU diff)

2011-01-27 Thread Michael G Schwern
On 2011.1.28 12:13 AM, Peter Corlett wrote: > Of course, when the only tool you have is CVS, any other version control > system lookslike a good idea. I suspect CVS was the result of a drunken bet > that it wasn't possible to make RCS worse. I give a lightning a talk called "Subversion Lifetime Ac

Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Peter Corlett
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 01:59:49PM +, Neil Brewitt wrote: [...] > Thanks for a sensible response. To be clear - I wasn't comparing with any > other modern systems, just responding to the absolute slandering of a tool > I've seen used very effectively by hundreds of very competent developers. >

Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Neil Brewitt
On 27 Jan 2011, at 12:50, Marco Von Ballmoos wrote: On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:45 PM, Neil Brewitt wrote: Nicholas, Anyone who hates perforce is a victim of bad education or software religion. I can't agree here. I'm a long-time user of Perforce as well and evangelized it over other solutions

Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Neil Brewitt
On 27 Jan 2011, at 11:49, Philip Newton wrote: On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:45, Neil Brewitt wrote: Reverts too difficult for you? Then don't revert changes. Use the software how it's meant to be used. Oh, right. I completely forgot that developers exist to serve tools the way they're meant t

Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Marco Von Ballmoos
On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:45 PM, Neil Brewitt wrote: Nicholas, Anyone who hates perforce is a victim of bad education or software religion. I can't agree here. I'm a long-time user of Perforce as well and evangelized it over other solutions when it was still so clearly better. However, some of

Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Philip Newton
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:45, Neil Brewitt wrote: > Reverts too difficult for you? Then don't revert changes. Use the software > how it's meant to be used. Oh, right. I completely forgot that developers exist to serve tools the way they're meant to work, rather than developers getting tools tha

Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Neil Brewitt
Nicholas, Anyone who hates perforce is a victim of bad education or software religion. It's faster, it's safer, it's lighter. It just works. Reverts too difficult for you? Then don't revert changes. Use the software how it's meant to be used. In a live perforce install for twenty developers I

Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 01:55:34PM +1030, Martin Ebourne wrote: > http://kb.perforce.com/article/14 > > Yes the version control system that needs an entire chapter on how to > revert a change, with multiple different possibilities depending how old > the change is or whether it included new/delet

Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Timothy Knox
Somewhere on Shadow Earth, at Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:19:28PM +1000, Michael G Schwern wrote: > On 2011.1.27 10:43 AM, Timothy Knox wrote: > > Bonus hate: When I am refactoring software, I will sometimes rename a > > variable or function or what-have-you. Before I submit the code to my > > source

Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Michael G Schwern
On 2011.1.27 10:43 AM, Timothy Knox wrote: > Bonus hate: When I am refactoring software, I will sometimes rename a > variable or function or what-have-you. Before I submit the code to my > source repository, I'd like to ensure that I am not picking up any stray > diffs (debugging changes, forgot to

Re: GNU diff

2011-01-27 Thread Timothy Knox
Somewhere on Shadow Earth, at Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 03:00:54PM +, Matthew King wrote: > GNU diff has an option described thusly: > > -I RE --ignore-matching-lines=RE > Ignore changes whose lines all match RE. > > Fantastic, says you, now I can compare two files and see onl