Full files in changesets?

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John A Meinel wrote:

> I think we could probably have an option, but default to having a rename
> show up as a rename, and have the 'renames:' section be incompatible
> with patch so that applying it with patch fails.
> 
> I would also do the same thing for delete.

Okay, so here's another issue: should changesets be reversible?  If you
don't include the full text of a deleted file, they won't be.  OTOH, the
stated purpose of a changeset is to produce a specific tree, given a
known base.  Reversability isn't necessary for this; reversal can happen
by doing a merge with THIS and BASE reversed.

> I think a regular add is okay to show up as a whole bunch of lines. Do
> we want to be aware of "resurrection" where a file was deleted and then
> re-added with exactly the same contents. This may not be worth anything,
> but it does give a more accurate portrayal of the changes.

And a different ID, I presume?  Yeah, that's a good question.  I'm
inclined to think we want to show them, but I doubt patch would like that.

> Also, for binary changes, are you thinking to base-64 encode them?

I haven't given it serious thought, yet.  It certainly sounds reasonable.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCkhiV0F+nu1YWqI0RAnJEAJ4sWZMbfkwjgltenWncVDg90E+lVQCfQqsQ
6J53KYgc9WIxEWnUq6dr980=
=g8U4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----