[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: How well does CVS handle other types of data?

From: Greg A. Woods
Subject: RE: How well does CVS handle other types of data?
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 20:09:27 -0400 (EDT)

[ On Thursday, July 12, 2001 at 16:53:53 (-0500), Thornley, David wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: How well does CVS handle other types of data?
> Except that I'm not banging my head against the wall, and it doesn't
> hurt.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not having problems
> with the way CVS manages the stuff I work with, which does include
> some binaries.

at first you say one thing, and now you say another.  which is it?

> What problem?  You've claimed that putting binaries into CVS is bad,
> and now you're claiming that I've got a problem with it.  I'm happy
> with CVS.  I wish it could handle unmergeable data as well as it
> handles mergeable, but that isn't possible, so I'm (a) not considering
> it a problem, and (b) not going to buy that keeping these apart is
> going to solve any problem I may have.

Well then quit wishing for the impossible!  All you're doing is
confusing the onlookers!

> Why, in the name of Babbage, is that supposed to be better?  I still
> can't automatically merge binaries, so it's no advantage there.  So
> what do I get if I do that?

but you can't avoid having to do something equivalent to merging of
opaque format binary files with CVS!

If you must handle non-mergable files as source, and you want to use CVS
for your mergable source, then it makes almost infinite sense to store
the non-mergable files in some other revision tracking system!!!!!!

> 1.  I get to maintain two version control systems in parallel.
> 2.  I get to maintain a more complicated build system.
> 3.  I get to try to keep the CVS stuff and the other stuff correctly
> aligned.
> What I don't get is an easier way of managing binary files.

You're looking at the world through CVS-only-eyes.  If you're having
problems with non-mergable files in CVS then you should look outside CVS
for a solution.  You might be pleasantly surprised at how much easier it
makes your life in the long term!

> However, I think you're wrong.  I have a simpler thing to do than manage
> text-based sources in CVS and binary sources in another directory with
> a more complicated build system:  I can put them all in CVS!  As long
> as I make sure the -kb goes on (and this has not been a problem in my
> shop), it's even simpler than hacking the build system.

-kb is not the solution -- it just makes the problem harder!  If it
didn't exist in the first place you'd never have gotten into this

Why not just use RCS stand-alone for the binaries?  Making a build
system that pulls a specified revision from an RCS file is trivial!

If your non-mergable files are few and the changes to them infrequent
then even carefully named directories will work just fine and make your
build system even easier to manage!

Why moan and complain about the impossible when a few tiny tweaks in the
right placess will make all your problems easy to manage?

                                                        Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <address@hidden>     <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>;   Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]