RE: cvs update; merge

[Paul Sander]

I haven't been following this thread, but this happened to catch my eye:

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Frederic Brehm [mailto:address@hidden
>> 
>> >[ On Wednesday, August 29, 2001 at 13:42:31 (-0400), Jimm 
>> Grimm wrote: ]
>> >>  Subject: RE: cvs update; merge
>> >>

>CVS merges using a line-based merge.  This has been found, over years
>of experience, to work very well on such things as program source files.
>It isn't the fact that there is such a thing as diff3 that makes CVS
>work, but the fact that using it gives meaningful, and usually correct,
>results.  While it is possible to have a diff/merge (aka diff3) for
>other formats, it at best isn't obvious that the result would be worth
>having.

>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden


As usual, Greg speaks of CVS as if it's not maliable to the will of its
users.  There has been a great deal of discussion in the past about the
possibility of replacing the diff3 merge algorithm with something that's
useful for merging more than ASCII text files.

One possibility is to hook a trinary switch in with the -kb keyword
expansion mode as a quick implementation to support unmergeable file types.
Another is to hook in a selection algorithm that examines the file and
invokes the proper merge tool.

But so far no one has had the wherewithall to implement either of these
and certain parties have argued vehemently that such features must not be
added because they don't happen to need them.