Re: cvs 1.11.2 rdiff fails with binary files

[Derek Robert Price]

Larry Jones wrote:

> Derek Robert Price writes:
>  
>
> > Also, do you know of any issues where rdiff behavior intentionally 
> > differs from that of diff?  I fixed diff some time ago to generate 
> > proper patches, so it seems to me that any behavior differences should 
> > perhaps be merged as much as possible in the vein of tag & rtag.  If you 
> > don't know the answer off of the top of your head, don't worry about it, 
> > of course.  I should get around to reading the source later.
> >    
>
> Not off the top of my head, other than the significantly different
> command line parsing.  I think merging patch.c into diff.c and unifying
> as much code as possible would be a very good thing.  I have mixed
> feelings about unifying the command lines.  On the one hand, it would be
> handy to have a real rdiff that accepts all the diff options, but there
> are conflicts with the existing patch (aka rdiff) options which are
> themselves quite useful.
>  

Hrm.  `-s' would seem to be roughly equivalent to diff's `--brief', so 
you mean `-t' to generate a patch between the last two revisions is 
useful?  I suppose we'd be removing rdiff's default implication of `diff 
-uN', but that could be replaced with the addition of a `--patch' option 
to `cvs diff' as a shortcut for `-uN'.

Derek

--
               *8^)

Email: address@hidden

Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
--
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.
Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?

                        - Thomas Jefferson