Talk:Patch (Unix)

message: This initial version of the article needs work, especially the second paragraph. While I understand it, it could be stated better. I probably won't be doing the work here, though. I am not a Unix-head. :-) —Frecklefoot 16:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs work

message: This article says:
: Context diffs are often easier to read by people unfamiliar with the unified diff format, but are generally significantly larger than unidiffs.
But the article on Diff says the opposite:
: The unified format (or unidiff) inherits the technical improvements made by the context format, but produces a smaller diff and a more human-readable result.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.212.171 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Context diffs should be avoided in favor of unified context diffs because of the time stamp format. Plain context diffs contain local time marks with localized text while unified context diffs use digits only and add a GMT offset to permit to parse an always correct time stamp. Schily (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

text: It's subjective, and comments regarding relative readability should be rephrased for NPOV. For either case, reading and interpreting the diff output requires some (minimal) experience. Tedickey 20:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability of diff files 

message: http://www.answers.com/topic/patch-unix?cat=technology
this is the same information. what gives?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustardy (talk • contribs) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, answers.com use Wikipedia articles, as they are entitled to under the terms of the GFDL.  See WP:Mirrors and forks. EdC (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  answers.com 

message: The comment reminds me to note that Univac had a simple batch editor (same issue), e.g, "slp".  DEC used the same name for a similar program (DEC borrowed more names from Univac than from IBM, though "symbiont" never took hold). Tedickey (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: IBM patch 

message: I see that there are links to git repositories, but they are for the GNU project, while the page title ("Patch (Unix)") mentions Unix. So shouldn't there be some precision to bring to the link, such as "Official specification: <link to OpenGroup site>", and change "Repository" to "GNU implementation repository: <Git repository of GNU patch>"?
Remember tha GNU is not Unix, and thus GNU patch is not an official implementation reference.
Sedrikov (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Git repositories 

message: Another from-scratch implementation of patch originated in toybox, written in 2007 (https://github.com/landley/toybox/commit/42ecbab08101) and ported from there to busybox in 2010 (http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-August/073112.html). The two have been kept roughly in sync ever since. Earlier this year there was an infodump on the toybox mailing list about how patch works: http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2019-January/010049.html . Toybox patch is the version Android is using to build itself: http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2019-December/011322.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E947:6500:6680:99FF:FE6F:CB54 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  toybox patch 

message: The version of patch in schilytools started with an early version of the gnu fork, rather than being just Wall's original version.  (And given the origin of the comment in this topic, the origin for the others is dubious).  See discussion in the diffstat page TEDickey (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  wall-vs-gnu