[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Coflict marker detection proposal (Was: How well does CVS handle ot

From: Noel L Yap
Subject: Re: Coflict marker detection proposal (Was: How well does CVS handle other types of data?)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:23:03 -0400

OK, so let's discuss it now.

If conflict marker detection were introduced, it would do one of a few things:
1. prevent checkin of files that legitimately had a conflict marker.
2. force kludges in such files just to be able to check them in.
3. enable marking such files so conflict detection is never done.

It would also needlessly further tie in diff3 into CVS greatly inhibiting any
pluggable diff/merge solution in the future.

OTOH, if developers wanted something like this, they can use a commitinfo script


[ On Saturday, July 14, 2001 at 14:34:42 (-0700), Mike Castle wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: How well does CVS handle other types of data?
> What bug?
> CVS used to scan the contents of the conflict file to see if it had been
> fixed.  But that was changed to the current method.  Do you consider that a
> bug now?

Yes, absolutely.  It's a stupid unecessary bug too.

The change to make conflict marker checks only be a warning was made
without proper discussion and without review:

revision 1.111
date: 1997/09/14 22:24:07;  author: kingdon;  state: Exp;  lines: +12 -3
        * commit.c (check_fileproc): If the file has "conflict
        indicators", spit a warning and proceed with the checkin.
        * (conflicts): Adjust tests conflicts-132,
        conflicts-status-3, conflicts-133, and conflicts-status-4
        for new behavior.

Jim's rationale for it was purely selfish and not well thought out:

Jim Kingdon <address@hidden> wrote on <address@hidden>:
| It used to be firmer (error rather than warning).  But I got sick of
| having that code hit every time that got merged (and no, I
| don't consider your 4 command diff/patch wonder to be "pretty easy".
| No accounting for taste :-)).

Discussion on devel-cvs after he did this was split, and I don't think I
took part at the time, but from the looks of the archives nobody ever
provided any real examples outside of what turned out to be non-issues
in the CVS code itself.

Unforuntatly it seems the change was never backed out until consensus
could be reached and now people are treating it as if it's right thing
where it's clearly not!  Grrr.

                                   Greg A. Woods

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

Info-cvs mailing list

This communication is for informational purposes only.  It is not intended as
an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument
or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data
and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein
do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates.

reply via email to

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