Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> added the comment: > “utterly broken” is a very strong opinion. The git diff format > supports things that unified diff does not and has one drawback to my > knowledge (I forgot exactly what—it was one missing piece of > information that you mentioned during one of the python-dev threads > about Mercurial migration or Roundup-Mercurial integration). > Everyone recommends always using git diffs.
That's because nobody (except for the Rietveld integration) needs to apply patches automatically, apparently - else people would have noticed that the format is just unusable, for this kind of application. Notice that this holds for Mercurial's implementation of git-style diffs. The ones generated by git don't have this issue. > >> As for changes that are reverted: what changes specifically? (or: >> what versions should it have compared instead of comparing >> 0c1c9bb590a9 and bc362109eed8?) > I’m sorry I don’t know exactly. I have this comment from the bug > report: > >> I'm not sure how the bugtracker patch mechanism works, but the >> patch it produced included a lot of changes > that I didn't make >> (changesets already committed to the master repo). I think that claim is incorrect. Unless it can be demonstrated with specific chunks that are there but ought not, I propose to close this issue as invalid. _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker <metatrac...@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> <http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue415> _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Tracker-discuss mailing list Tracker-discuss@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-discuss
