Matthieu Moy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I'm currently working on a submit/apply-patch-via-email kind of >> interface for bzr, based on the one for tla. This one will use diff >> files, however, instead of patch tarballs. > > Don't use diff. bzr supports "bundles" (in bzr.dev only), which is > mostly a patch plus some annotation, which is sufficient for bzr to > rebuild the revision completely on the other side. > > DVC can help to use the bzr features here, but should not reimplement > its own.
What else is needed in order for the change to be completely rebuilt,
besides the diff? We already include the log message separately with
the message -- I can't think of any other important metadata to send
along.
I propose that we switch to a single diff file for sending patches via
email on *all* backends, including tla. Benefits:
1. Easier for non-DVC users to read.
2. Because of (1), patches sent via this method to mailing lists have
a greater likelihood of being accepted.
3. If someone switches backends for their project (like tla->bzr for
DVC, recently), pending patches can still be applied easily.
4. A standard method for sending patches lends itself better to
abstraction in DVC and fast implementation of patch-sending
support for new backends.
5. Diff/patch has a MIME type already, which makes for better
integration with email clients.
--
Michael Olson -- FSF Associate Member #652 -- http://www.mwolson.org/
Interests: Emacs Lisp, text markup, protocols -- Jabber: mwolson_at_hcoop.net
/` |\ | | | IRC: mwolson on freenode.net: #hcoop, #muse, #PurdueLUG
|_] | \| |_| Project involvement: Emacs, Muse, Planner, ERC, EMMS
pgpdEi7om2xaV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dvc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/dvc-dev
