[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

From: Terrence Enger
Subject: Re: cvs diff, proposal for change
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 18:25:43 -0400

At 15:56 2003-09-04 -0400, "Greg A. Woods" <address@hidden> wrote:
>[ On Wednesday, September 3, 2003 at 13:07:52 (-0400), Terrence Enger
wrote: ]
> > Subject: cvs diff, proposal for change
> >
> > In general, the concensus of those in the know has been
> > negative: cvs diff is so far from working with arbitrary files
> > that it is not even worth thinking about changing it.
> > Nevertheless, I beg your indulgence as I put forward this
> > preliminary proposal for changes.
> "cvs diff" itself is just the very tip of the iceberg.
> The same text-based delta algorithms go right to the core of how RCS
> files work.

I would not dream of suggesting a change to that.  Nor do I suggest
changing anything in the repository, or even in a sandbox.

> If you want to store abitrary (and especially unstructured) binary data
> in a version control system then CVS (and RCS) never was, and never will
> be, an appropriate choice for your purposes.

Yes, but (in my best, 3-year-old, obnoxious whine) ...
(1) I have some familiarity with cvs, and I am learning to
    like it more all the time.
(2) I have binary files, and <confession> lack of version
    control of binary files has wasted too much of my
Just like any 3-year-old, I don't want to admit that I am

cvs already supports binary files to the extent of offering
-kb.  And Herr Klauer's files are binary only in the sense
that different patterns look the same on the screen.  Would
the objection to the proposal still stand if I could submit
a patch?  (I am not planning to do that soon, and probably
not at all; just probing for the roots of the objection.)

Meanwhile, I am going away to think some more.

Thank you, Greg, for your attention.


reply via email to

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