On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 06:42:02AM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > one more thought - although there are obviously dups, it can be argued > that correctly so. for example, why would you remove dups from limerick > that are in fortune? someone might want only limericks, and would not > benefit from having them removed.
Exactly. Although there have been several CVS commits removing duplicates in the past, it doesn't necessarily mean that all duplicates should be considered as errors. > so any such diff would have to take that into account. as far as i can > see, the only dup removal diff that makes sense is to remove dups from > fortune and fortune2. Agreed.
