[PATCH]: Optional explanation for options

[Martin Pool]

On 20/09/05, John A Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:

> Neither does an appropriate changeset.

Right, so it would have been more useful had I written about the
approach of a binary attachment vs your changeset (which is very cool,
and should be built in.)

The main differences with Robert's approach (if i remember correctly)
is that the diff would be shown only for human review, with the extra
data held elsewhere.  changeset already does a good job of keeping it
at the end of the file, so it's just a matter of degree.

> I can understand that you might want patches inline, because then you
> can review them from your mail agent. My mail agent (Thunderbird)
> occasionally figures out that an attachment is actually text, and will
> display it for me. But sometimes it just leaves it as an attachment (and
> then I have to spawn an external editor).
> 
> But when it works, it does mean that I can review everything easily.

Yep, aside from the occasional damage in transit it is rather beautiful.

> Does that mean that text-ids are going to change (and thus all of the
> hashes of inventories, etc). Or just that the new text-ids will follow
> the standard?

Yes, the converter needs to write new inventories, and therefore new
revisions (to include the inventory ids).

http://bazaar.canonical.com/BzrFormat5

-- 
Martin