Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:17:51 -0400
Message-Id: <200005222017.QAA30261@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <392994C1.47D32D27@cyberoptics.com> (message from Eric Rudd on
	Mon, 22 May 2000 15:12:49 -0500)
Subject: Re: Bug 314
References: <200005221901 DOT PAA30815 AT delorie DOT com> <392994C1 DOT 47D32D27 AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> I felt silly including the patches, because they are longer than the
> files they patch.  I wonder if DJ's file-update system requires
> patches, or if in cases like this it's simpler to send the new
> files.  DJ?

"cvs diff -p3" is best.  I paste that into a patch, and "cvs commit"
it.  I don't like being surprised when unexpected things change.

Plus, patches can patch multiple files in one operation (don't forget
to update wc204.txi and *.txh) and are much more forgiving of cut and
paste mistakes.

Patches are also much easier to review, as they show both before and
after.  If you send only the new file, we'd have to go find the old
file also, or generate our own patches.