[Top][All Lists]

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

Smoke, FUD (was Re: CVS corrupts binary files ...)

From: Paul Sander
Subject: Smoke, FUD (was Re: CVS corrupts binary files ...)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:49:42 -0700

Whew, the smoke's getting thick in here!

>From: address@hidden

>[ On Thursday, June 17, 2004 at 13:06:44 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: CVS corrupts binary files ...
>> Current releases of CVS do the latter.  (Don't believe me?  Look at
>> the function named RCS_merge in the rcscmds.c source file.)  It's a
>> simple matter to replace the invocation of diff3 with a different tool.


>Since when does the phrase "diff and diff3 algorithms" identify any
>particular program that might implement those algorithms?

Then you don't object to swapping the diff and diff3  programs out for
others that might apply other 2-way and 3-way differencing algorithms that
are more appropriate to the data at hand, for purposes other than
maintainting the integrity of the RCS file format?

If this is true, then we're in violent agreement.  But to date, you have
argued that making the necessary changes to CVS to give better support
for data types not handled well specifically by the diff and diff3 programs
would break compatibility with RCS, which is demonstrably false.  The
maintenance of version history is sufficiently insulated from the user
interfaces of the content merge features that there is simply no credible
argument on that basis.

>Paul, _you_ are the one spreading FUD here.

How am I spreading Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt?  I'm claiming that CVS is
capable of doing more than it does, with only minor changes (i.e. none
that have significant impact on its architecture).  There's no FUD here,
other than what's in your head.  The world won't end if CVS changes its
merge tool, Greg.  Get over it.

>In case you have forgotten I am intimately familiar with exactly how the
>GNU diffutils code and the GNU patch code is integrated into the CVS

Not so intimate that you fully understand how the CVS design constrains
the effects of certain kinds of changes, apparently.

reply via email to

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