Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 14:16:45 +1100
From: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Message-ID: <20041206031645.GD28299@hezmatt.org>
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>
	<20041206015353.GA7353@aku>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20041206015353.GA7353@aku>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch Versus CVS Versus Subversoin
Precedence: list
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0636936801=="
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: 2305
Lines: 79

--===============0636936801==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2FkSFaIQeDFoAt0B"
Content-Disposition: inline


--2FkSFaIQeDFoAt0B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 02:53:54AM +0100, Andre Kuehne wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 04:25:22PM -0800, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> > >=20
> > > On Dec 4, 2004, at 16:06, Tom Browder wrote:
> > >=20
> > > >Does arch offer or plan to offer those three features (CVS rtag=20
> > > >equivalent,
> > > >binary diff, CVSROOT equivalent)?
> > >=20
> > > 	There has been discussion of binary diffs a while back, but I don't=
=20
> > > remember quite what came out of it.
> >=20
> > Arch already has the only kind of binary diff that is possible.
>=20
> You consider "putting the original file and its replacement side by side"
> a binary diff?

For arbitrary binary formats, that *is* the only way of providing a
meaningful 'diff'.  "That is what we had before, and this is what we have
now".

> > 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.
>=20
> 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.

If it were in such high demand, it *would* be implemented.

- Matt

--2FkSFaIQeDFoAt0B
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBs88dBEnrTWk1E4cRAlwWAJ4l1VtpMYDnCcN4ixIpR4e9OJyxGwCcCBBm
ERQ1b2CStrenA6ozy/pfwpo=
=/du8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--2FkSFaIQeDFoAt0B--


--===============0636936801==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
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/
--===============0636936801==--