Message160963
| Author |
loewis |
| Recipients |
alexis, brian.curtin, eric.araujo, jackjansen, jaraco, kristjan.jonsson, loewis, mark.dickinson, mhammond, python-dev, sable, santoso.wijaya, sbt, tarek, tim.golden |
| Date |
2012年05月17日.10:26:11 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<20120517122611.Horde.zLruGdjz9kRPtNJDRnv1dLA@webmail.df.eu> |
| In-reply-to |
<1337249200.43.0.140172043205.issue13210@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> That sounds reasonable. So, can't we come up with a diff that does
> both? The base revision sounds like a completely necessary piece of
> info.
I believe there is a bug report against Mercurial to include the base
revision even in git-style diffs, not sure what the status is. git itself
includes the base revision in its diffs; I believe that Mercurial didn't
dare to use the same syntax since the Mercurial hash wouldn't be a valid
git hash. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年05月17日 10:26:12 | loewis | set | recipients:
+ loewis, mhammond, jackjansen, mark.dickinson, jaraco, kristjan.jonsson, sable, tim.golden, tarek, eric.araujo, brian.curtin, santoso.wijaya, alexis, python-dev, sbt |
| 2012年05月17日 10:26:11 | loewis | link | issue13210 messages |
| 2012年05月17日 10:26:11 | loewis | create |
|