On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 11:49:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 02:17:33PM +0300, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
> >> What is your opinion? Should we renounce the additional manual step and use
> >> only the pure "Optimized SVG" format? This will increase the
> >> 'diff-ablility', which may be valuable in the long term. But direct
> >> readability of the files suffers more or less.
>
> > Uh, so really there is plain SVG, "Optimized SVG", and readable SVG. I
> > am thinking you should store just "Optimized SVG", and provide a shell
> > script to convert to readable SVG for those that want it.
>
> Man, this discussion is leaving me disheartened. It sure sounds like
> we are going to end up in a situation where either everyone touching
> the graphics has to use the same version of the same tool (with the
> same options, even), or else we're going to have massive, unreadable,
> and mostly content-free diffs in every patch.
Yes, that might end up being the case. I think the only saving part is
that we aren't going to have lots of people editing the graphics.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +