Re: Coflict marker detection proposal

[Noel L Yap]

>>  If people are
>> maintaining them with text editors, then they most certainly are source
files.
>
>and if that's the case then there's never going to be a need for them to
>commit such files with recognizable conflict markers, and every reason
>why they would want to avoid doing so in the first place....

IOW, they would need to perform some acrobatics in order to hack around your
patch.

>> Or are you now going to argue that since they can be generated, that they
must
>> not be source files?
>
>If they are generated then they are not source files, by definition.

Please reread my post bearing in mind that the Esglish is correct.

>If they're not generated then you don't want recognizable conflict
>markers in them because such things *WILL* be confused for real conflict
>markers inserted by CVS.

So now you can read the users' minds?

>> There are now four people against your proposal, one of whom has done the
search
>> you asked for and found files matching your original criteria, and one person
>> for your proposal.
>
>Hmmm.... I don't see any such tally of votes.  The list of files found
>was just that, an unadorned list of files.  No vote recorded there (not
>that votes are what counts here)....

If you want, I can go through my email and cut and paste users' comments.
Considering that you can't even see how many users are against this proposal,
it's obvious that you aren't even listening to their comments.  Maybe you should
go through your email and do a tally.

>So far I've seen more caveats and opinions from "the other side" than
>any well reasoned arguments....

And, honestly, how many "well reasoned arguments" have you seen for your side?

>>  When are you going to accept the fact that this doesn't
>> belong in the distribution (at least not without a simple workaround -- I
prefer
>> "cvs ci -f" myself)?
>
>When are you going to accept that fact that open source is not
>democratic (no matter who controls the keys to the distribution)?

I never said it was, in fact, I had said that it wasn't.

>I've already offered two potential workarounds too, BTW....

Are they as simple as "cvs ci -f"?

Noel



This communication is for informational purposes only.  It is not intended as
an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument
or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data
and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein
do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates.