[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Paul Sander
Subject: Re: Smoke, FUD (was Re: CVS corrupts binary files ...)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:02:19 -0700

>--- Forwarded mail from Greg Woods:

>[ On Thursday, June 17, 2004 at 16:49:42 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>> Subject: Smoke, FUD (was Re: CVS corrupts binary files ...)
>> 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.

>Have you not looked at the content of an RCS file lately Paul?

>RCS compatability is far more than just the adherence to the syntax
>defined in rcsfile(5).  If the generic "co" program from the RCS package
>cannot extract any and every revision of a file from a file claiming to
>be an RCS file then that file is clearly not RCS compatible.

I have never, ever advocated changing the format of an RCS file in a
way that would break the ci, co, rcs, or rlog programs.  And although
I strongly advocate the replacement of user-exposed diff and merge
tools, I have never, ever advocated the replacement of the diff tool
that computes the deltas stored in an RCS file.

(That is not to say that I  have never suggested making incompatible
changes, but in context such suggestions have always carried caveats
and recognized the lack of desirability of losing a valuable feature.)

I don't know where you seem to be getting the idea that I'm recommending
doing a global search and replace of "diff" with some other tool.  That
is clearly not the case.  The RCS file format must be retained, unless
we as a group decide to abandon it after weighing the consequences.

However, I do advocate extending the RCS file format in ways that
the RCS API can accomodate.  The rcsfile(5) manual specifically allows
for extensions in the admin and delta sections of the file.  For
example, I do recommend using a newphrase in the admin section to identify
the type of data stored in the file, but not until the rename problem is

>> How am I spreading Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt? 

>Maybe hypocrisy would be a better description of your approach to CVS.

I don't believe I'm misrepresenting any of my beliefs about CVS or SCM
in general.  I've tried very hard to explain them clearly, and I've tried
especially hard to drill them into that rock that you carry on your
shoulders, but I'm obviously using the wrong screwdriver.

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

reply via email to

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