[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: merge mode for XML

From: Noel Yap
Subject: RE: merge mode for XML
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 05:17:38 -0700 (PDT)

--- Sean Hager <address@hidden> wrote:
> on earth, extension matching would be fine.  Unless
> you have rogue
> developers that "try" and break the system by
> changing file formation while
> keeping extensions the same (save it as a jpg, but
> it is really a gif
> format) you should not have a problem.  If you do
> have rogue developers, or
> even developers that can't follow simple
> instructions such as "hey, if it is
> not a jpeg then don't save it as a jpeg!" then you
> have much larger
> problems.
> ie. maybe the inmates of San Quinton do not make the
> idea
> development team.

I disargee.  Doing this would force a policy onto CVS
users where such a policy isn't really necessary.

I think using extensions for any decision making is
bad.    Don't you think it would be bad to force the
same diff/merge onto several files that had no

There's two important issues here, really:
1. The default diff/merge for a new file.
2. The actual diff/merge of an existing file.

Greg is talking about the second issue.  I have an
inkling keeping this info on a per-version basis won't
work but I haven't come up with anything substantial.

I'm not sure which issue you're talking about.  If
it's the second, then using extensions would not allow
anyone to override the diff/merge for any reason
thereby putting the users at the mercy of CVS.


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness

reply via email to

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