Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 23:35:40 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: FreeBSD-current <current@freebsd.org>, Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: CVS DIFF fix for review (-L added) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980111232840.17312A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net> In-Reply-To: <199801111457.WAA06475@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Peter Wemm wrote: > > BTW, do you still against applying the fix into -current and -stable > > cvs (which 'cvs diff' remains broken)? > > If you can convince the info-cvs folks to make the changes, then I'll go > along. Otherwise, IMHO the new patch and/or "standard" is busted. It > wouldn't be the first time that POSIX have screwed something up. CVS and > patch have been doing it like this since as far back as 1993. Please, note that it _not_ POSIX invention, POSIX just document _existent_practice_ for years! GNU "patch" (_any_ version!) _never_ have Index: precedence, so CVS code in question _never_ works with GNU "patch" and was broken at the first moment as designed. BTW, I have no reply at this moment from CVS folks (I not subscribed to info-cvs), did you? What we plan to do if no reply comes? Leave it broken? -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@nietzsche.net> http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980111232840.17312A-100000>