Re: Status of new source formats project
Charles Plessy <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:45:00PM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > The point, rather, seems to be that unified-diff format is the de
> > facto standard format for exchanging patch information.
> Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:53:21AM +0200, Michael Banck a écrit :
> > It's the preferred format for 99% of all Free Software work/projects
> > AFAICT.
> In my workplace's cafeteria, 99 % of the people eat curry rice with a
> spoon, and 1 % with chopsticks. But this is causing no trouble
Right, because an individual's use of spoon or chopsticks to eat their
own meal isn't about interaction *between* people; it's a private choice
that affects only that individual.
The analogy doesn't hold for this discussion, since this is about data
interchange formats, which affects *all* parties in the transaction.
See how far you'd get with expecting accommodation of 1% of people using
a different form of currency to pay for their curry rice.
> I am all for campaigning for the unified diff format if there are
> arguments on which I can base a discussion with Upstream, but a mere
> cultural preference, be it the one of a very large majority, is a too
> weak argument.
Standard data interchange formats is such an argument: one which you
even quoted me as putting forth. The de facto standard data format for
interchange of patch data is unified-diff format.
\ “Well, my brother says Hello. So, hooray for speech therapy.” |
`\ —Emo Philips |