From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Langhoff Subject: Re: [offtopic?] xdelta patch format wrapper Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:13:20 +1300 Message-ID: <47B26E60.70005@catalyst.net.nz> References: <47B24D8A.5090703@catalyst.net.nz> <7vy79py1it.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jmacd@cs.berkeley.edu To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 13 05:14:05 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JP90V-0000Ux-U9 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:14:04 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753769AbYBMEN3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:13:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754710AbYBMEN3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:13:29 -0500 Received: from godel.catalyst.net.nz ([202.78.240.40]:34968 "EHLO mail1.catalyst.net.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753690AbYBMEN2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:13:28 -0500 Received: from 121-73-4-156.cable.telstraclear.net ([121.73.4.156] helo=[192.168.0.94]) by mail1.catalyst.net.nz with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JP8zp-0000pR-IT; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:13:21 +1300 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) In-Reply-To: <7vy79py1it.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > If you want to reuse that much of git Wondering about the confusion over this. When I talk about using xdelta, it's not the implementation in git. I intend to ship this xdelta.exe http://evanjones.ca/software/xdelta-win32.html (for Windows users at least!). What I am sounding out is writing a wrapper written in PHP (I'd write it in Perl, but we're already shipping the PHP interpreter) that does all the parsing of the file, splits out the actual "xdelta" blobs and calls xdelta.exe to apply them to the relevant files. Someone more talented than me would write it in perfectly portable C so that on day one works on Win32, OSX, unices and linuces. I can't so I'll look like a wimp but I'll deliver something workable ;-) But there's no reason the PHP or Perl implementation can't be considered a working prototype for a subsequent C version. Specially if the file format makes sense. And we've been complaining about problems and ambiguities in the unified diff header. So... I'll rephrase my question "What would a unified diff header that didn't suck look like?" (Ah, can't find the threads where the ambiguities of diff headers were discussed. Alas, the Google Gods aren't with me today.) cheers, m --