That's a good idea - i'll look into that. For preprocessing the branches : that was my first idea, but it would take time (time is a problem). And the second problem would be to convince the none too trusting and computer semi-literate release management people, that the intricate tool in question only does its cleaning and preprocessing job, and doesn't eat or add any code, skewing the comparison. So i'm first looking at the 'binary' solution.
Thanks ! Elise > ---------- > From: Martin Habets[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 03 December 2003 19:25 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Scottish] Re: slightly OT question > > cmp might do the trick. I'd expect the timestamp to be in the header > somewhere, so skipping the first 256 bytes should get around that. > > Another route worth considering is to preprocess the branches and > them compare those files. > > Martin > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Download Yahoo! Messenger now for a chance to win Live At Knebworth DVDs > http://www.yahoo.co.uk/robbiewilliams > > _______________________________________________ > Scottish mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/scottish > *********************************************************************************** This email and any accompanying files are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy or disclose the content. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by return email and delete this message. Thankyou for your co-operation. ************************************************************************************* _______________________________________________ Scottish mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/scottish
