Jamie Lokier wrote: > I agree, there isn't a suitable "winner" at this time. > > What does DAV + Delta-V propose at the moment? Nothing. From a simple DAV p.o.v., simulating file i/o (skip, write, truncate) may be enough. DeltaV probably would benefit more from a "true" patch format, such as gdiff. Note that the former case seems to be a subset of the latter. > The obvious format for PATCH is to pick the same format that can be > _fetched_, CVS-style, to update a workspace. Is that in Delta-V? No. But it maybe in Subversion. Is a Subversion developer following this thread? Greg S.? > Another capability to aim for is a patch format that is helpful for > resolving fuzzy matches in a 3-way merge in the same way as CVS-style > merging -- again, choose the same as Delta-V. Yep, but that's something we don't want as REQUIRED support. Let's focus on the simple things first, and then let extensibility take care of the rest. > Finally, it would be nice to have VCDIFF-style compression integrated, > although compressing normal patches works ok so it's not that important. If normal HTTP compression works fine, there's no reason to complicate the method. Regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 06:06:15 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:23 GMT