Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 02:53:54 +0100
From: Andre Kuehne <andre.kuehne@gmx.net>
To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Versus CVS Versus Subversoin
Message-ID: <20041206015353.GA7353@aku>
Mail-Followup-To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
References: <20041205000613.PNEI7152.lakermmtao09.cox.net@nonerjsnum1tkq>
	<26E1F314-4654-11D9-AD55-000A957659CC@spy.net>
	<20041205023828.GA11443@suffields.me.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20041205023828.GA11443@suffields.me.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Precedence: list
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1143
Lines: 38
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 04:25:22PM -0800, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> > 
> > On Dec 4, 2004, at 16:06, Tom Browder wrote:
> > 
> > >Does arch offer or plan to offer those three features (CVS rtag 
> > >equivalent,
> > >binary diff, CVSROOT equivalent)?
> > 
> > 	There has been discussion of binary diffs a while back, but I don't 
> > remember quite what came out of it.
> 
> Arch already has the only kind of binary diff that is possible.

You consider "putting the original file and its replacement side by side"
a binary diff?

> It would be possible to compress the changesets better but there is
> little demand for this, to the point where nobody cares enough to do
> it.

This seems to be a popular statement when it comes to missing features,
but you can say this about _everything_ not yet done, and it certainly
doesn't give you a hint about demand.

-- 
     _   _
_/\_| |_( )_
Andre Kuehne


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/