4 ms·
I think there's a confusion here between diffs and patches. I would call the thing you're describing a patch, not a diff, and then everything makes much more s
by eqvinox 1y ago
I think there's a confusion here between diffs and patches. I would call the thing you're describing a patch, not a diff, and then everything makes much more sense.
(This is not helped by the fact that diffs often come with a .patch file extension… or that the "patch" tool processes diffs…)
Or anyway the nomenclature really sucks in this field. I guess I have no clue whether I have a minority view here.
- chipx86 1y agoYeah the nomenclature sucks. When talking about the file, the two terms are often used interchangeably (and are usually a .diff or a .patch extension). For fun, the GNU Patch manpage says: "NAME: patch - apply a diff file to an original" followed by: "patch takes a patch file patchfile containing ..." "patch tries to skip any leading garbage, apply the diff, and then ..."