Re: diff display
- From: gary turner <gary.kk5st@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:03:04 -0500
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 09/10/08 18:28, gary turner wrote:There is a measure of logic there. Having both is in line with the philosophy of "do one thing, do it well". There are a number of uses for diff where folding back into the original is not a part of the deal—thus, no patch.Ron Johnson wrote:On 09/10/08 16:03, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:<snip>
The main purpose of diff is to generate a patch which can then be used to
apply/revert changes across two versions of a file.
That would sanely be called "patch", not "diff".
See man patch. diff consists of differences between files, and patch folds those differences back into the original.
Then that should be:
$ patch --gen-diff
$ patch --apply-diff
Anyone can make a usable web site. It takes a graphic
designer to make it slow, confusing and painful to use.
org:Gary Turner, Web Developer
- Prev by Date: Re: Way OT: OpenDNS
- Next by Date: Re: diff display
- Previous by thread: Re: diff display
- Next by thread: Re: diff display