Re: CVS and Jar files: Should you import Jar into the Repository? Why or why not

[Paul Sander]

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>[ On Tuesday, March 5, 2002 at 16:12:24 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: CVS and Jar files: Should you import Jar into the Repository? 
>> Why or why not
>>
>> RCS stores binary files just fine, though perhaps not as efficiently as
>> most ASCII files.  All that is needed is that they come out bit-for-bit
>> identical to what went in for any given revision.

>There are some corner cases where RCS does not do bit-for-bit binary 
>reproduction.

>Some of them are indeed irrelevant to the majority of file formats
>people seem to use, but for some reason there are still an exceptional
>number of complaints in this very forum of instances where people's
>binaries have been messed up due to one problem or another.

Most of them seem to come from people who don't set -kb from the outset.

>> I've already proven that CVS can be modified to accomodate new data types
>> by integrating new merge tools, and still retain its concurrent editing
>> capabilities.

>Proof is in the pudding.  Where's your working, interoperable, code?

See the following in the archives of this forum:
Message-Id: <address@hidden>

>> And it doesn't force anything with "patch".  We've already had this argument;
>> CVS falls back on something else if "patch" isn't available.

>CVS doesn't "fall back" -- it backs out completely leaving the user in
>the lurch, and giving little or no useful guidance to deal with the issue.

Really.  I thought it copied the entire file over network if it couldn't
apply a patch.  If that capability was removed recently then it should be
restored, or the necesary tool should be librified and integrated.

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