On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: > > On 14/11/08 18:03, Matt Wozniski wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: >>> You can also use patches even if you don't want to use gif (sic) >> >> Of course you can - you can do all of your programming without version >> control, but why would you want to! Seriously, the idea isn't to >> force people to change their ways, but to make it easier for those who >> don't want to spend their time collecting patches and patching the >> source themselves. > > Well, one reason could be that Vim SVN lags behind by a noticeable time > delay (days, sometimes weeks); another reason could be that you don't > know where to get a version of the appropriate version-control software > for your OS. > > Seriously, the "patch" program is so easy to use (in most cases, after a > cd to the right directory, "patch -p0 <patchfilename" is enough, > replacing of course "patchfilename" by the patch file name, possibly > with path) that I can understand quite well that people wouldn't want to > spend their time learning how to use a particular version-control > package, especially now that (even outside of the Vim world) people > apparently can't agree on whether to use CVS, SVN, gif, Mercurial or > something else. :-P
But the "patch" invocation isn't the hard part, it's resolving the conflicts when applying several nonstandard patches. I'm not arguing that people should be forced to use version control, just pointing out that in cases like these it's a valuable alternative. ~Matt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
