Re: How well does CVS handle other types of data?

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Thursday, July 12, 2001 at 18:16:29 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: How well does CVS handle other types of data?
>
> Every type of file is mergeable; trivially, the merge can be complete
> replacement.  In other words, a viable merge algorithm is a 3-way switch,
> without regard for content.

Hah!  Yeah, but how do you measure the intent of the changes you're
choosing between?   :-)

> Many non-text data types have viable content merge tools.
> 
> Many text-based formats are not mergeable using general-purpose tools.
> 
> Why can't CVS support these kinds of data in a general way, rather than
> forcing the worn-out RCS merge tool upon the world?  Why is it such a bad
> idea to add to CVS a way of identifying data types and invoke the proper
> merge tool for each type?

Why don't you read the archives for the fairly recent thread that
covered this issue in detail?  Oh, I forgot!  You were a primary
participant in those discussions?  So, why do you ask such a question,
again?

> The basic design of CVS is not fundamentally altered by this, and the
> repository remains binary-compatible with what exists today.  As far as
> I can tell, there is no disadvantage to adding this, and great advantage.

No, the basic design would not be altered, but the specific
implementation details on which various compatability issues hinge would
be.

If somone posts working code that does this someday then I guess we'll
see just how great an advantage it will turn out to be and how willing
people are to make the necessary changes in their repository formats.

-- 
                                                        Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <address@hidden>     <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>;   Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>