On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 11:49:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 02:17:33PM +0300, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > >> What is your opinion? Should we renounce the additional manual step and use > >> only the pure "Optimized SVG" format? This will increase the > >> 'diff-ablility', which may be valuable in the long term. But direct > >> readability of the files suffers more or less. > > > Uh, so really there is plain SVG, "Optimized SVG", and readable SVG. I > > am thinking you should store just "Optimized SVG", and provide a shell > > script to convert to readable SVG for those that want it. > > Man, this discussion is leaving me disheartened. It sure sounds like > we are going to end up in a situation where either everyone touching > the graphics has to use the same version of the same tool (with the > same options, even), or else we're going to have massive, unreadable, > and mostly content-free diffs in every patch.
Yes, that might end up being the case. I think the only saving part is that we aren't going to have lots of people editing the graphics. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
