RE: cvswrappers - any better suggestions ?

[David Glick]

I'd argue that I do get it; you just don't get that I get it.

Your statement "CVS literally cannot support binary files..." should be changed 
to "CVS does not currently support binary files in a way that is consistent 
with the philosophy of concurrent editing".

If we can agree with the above statement, then this immediately leads to two 
possible approaches (or three, if you continue to argue that binary files 
should not be supported...):

1) Violate the 'concurrent' philosophy with regard to binary files, and 
implement a locked checkout to allow for straightforward creation of deltas and 
avoid the messy problems of figuring out how to concurrently update binary 
files.

2) Allow for concurrent checkout of binary files, but disallow concurrent 
commits, e.g. only a user that has updated to the current version will be 
allowed to commit changes.

Neither approach is ideal, but both provide a step in the direction of better 
support for binary files.  I'm sure there are other approaches that may well 
satisfy other people's needs, too.  There may even be a way to fold binary file 
support completely into the CVS philosophy; I'm just too busy right now to 
think it through completely (and, unfortunately, I'm *way* to busy to actually 
do the work... sigh.).


----- Original Message -----

Clearly you do not get it at all.  CVS literally cannot support binary
files in any better fashion without becoming something that will no
longer be a "Concurrent Versions System".  It was designed specifically
to force concurrent editing and that design goal permeates the way it
works through and through (despite the valiant attempts by others to
bend it to suit their twisted ideas).  You cannot throw out the bath
water without throwing out the baby in this case -- they are one in the
same.

----- Original Message -----