On Saturday 03 January 2009 17:21:16 Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Ulrich Eckhardt <doomster <at> knuut.de> writes:
> > saying "please merge r1234 from
> > foo into trunk" is much easier than downloading and applying a patch,
> > which doesn't even cover all possible changes that SVN does.
>
> I don't know about others, but downloading and applying a patch doesn't
> bother me (it's actually much quicker than doing a whole new SVN checkout).
1. I think that a patch can not e.g. capture a moved, renamed or deleted file.
Further, it can not handle e.g. things like the executable bit or similar
things that SVN otherwise does manage. That is what makes a patch only
partially suitable.
2. You don't checkout anew. You simply switch ("svn switch") your existing
working copy to the branch which just pulls the differences and merges them
into your existing working copy. Or, you could merge the changes on a branch
("svn merge") into your working copy.
> What takes time and effort is to actually check and review the patch (or
> branch, or whatever).
Yes, full ACK.
Uli
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4