[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline considered harmful?
From: |
Jan Hudec |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline considered harmful? |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:54:21 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 05:35:04PM -0700, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 01:55:16PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> >>> Having read in the tla docs that tagline is the recommended tagging
> >>> method, I'm wondering what the compelling reasons for using it are?
> >>
> >>I don't have to use special tools to move a file -- `mv' works fine.
> >>Same for removing a file.
> >
> >unless the file is of a type incompatible with tagline, if you have
> >those then you must remember which ones are using tagline and which
> >ones don't before doing a move.
>
> I was reading Eric Raymonds new book "The Art of Unix Programming" and
> one interesting fact leapt out at me: you CAN tag PNG format images.
> They have a special file format that lets you add arbitrary chunks of
> data to them, you just set a flag telling browsers that they can ignore
> the chunk safely. And I know JPG and GIF files have text comment
> sections which could contain an arch-id: tag (I really like arch-id:
> better than arch-tag;)
>
> Not sure what to do about tagging gzip files, but self-extracting gzip
> files are definately taggable, as they are just shell script wrappers
> around the data, and invoke gzip. (at least, they used to be)
>
> Tom, will you later on be supporting customized diff formats for
> individual file format types? For instance, as a writer, I'd like to
> use "wdiff" for my writings, because it operates on a word by word
> level, which is more useful to me to see what changes I made. I know,
> the utility to apply wdiff files as patches hasn't been developed yet,
> but if you plan to put hooks in for such a thing, I think it will be
> worth developing. CVS and Subversion right now don't have such
> flexibility (I don't think), so there is no motive for developing a
> wpatch.
IIRC wiggle is almost there. It can do word diffs (thought probably not
apply them) and it can apply patches (in unified format) word-by-word.
It also removes the braindamage of patch, which does not have an option
to ignore already applied chunks (very good for merging).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec
<address@hidden>
- [Gnu-arch-users] tagline considered harmful?, Maksim Lin, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tagline considered harmful?, Miles Bader, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tagline considered harmful?, Tom Lord, 2003/08/23
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline considered harmful?, Stig Brautaset, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline considered harmful?, Ethan Benson, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline considered harmful?, Jonathan Walther, 2003/08/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline considered harmful?,
Jan Hudec <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline considered harmful?, Miles Bader, 2003/08/26
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline considered harmful?, Jan Hudec, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline considered harmful?, Tom Lord, 2003/08/26
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline considered harmful?, Miles Bader, 2003/08/26
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tagline considered harmful?, Jan Hudec, 2003/08/27