One case where patience diff does much better

[James Blackwell]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:37:36AM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2006, John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Wow, resurrecting an *old* thread. :) I saw someone accessed the branch,
> > and wondered why. :)
> 
> I think I was away or too busy when it originally happened.  There's a
> bug open about diffutils getting tied up on pathological input, and I
> was talking to Bram about it.
> 
> > If it isn't on by default, I don't think it will be used. I think a
> > reasonable test case would be to upgrade an existing bzr branch, and
> > make sure all of the sha1 sums match before and after (and haven't changed).
> > 
> > That will ensure that even if the algorithm is performing sub-optimally,
> > it is at least performing *correctly*.
> 
> That makes sense.  Should we put it in now before 0.8 or hold it off?
> The diff algorithm by itself seems fairly low risk.

I wasn't able to find the attachment on your email. Does the diff format
with patience look similiar to the diff format for what users get today
with "bzr diff"?


Regards,
James

-- 
My home page:   <a href="http://jblack.linuxguru.net">James Blackwell</a>
Gnupg 06357400  F-print AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060226/d68825fa/attachment.pgp