RE: merge mode for XML

[Noel Yap]

--- Sean Hager <address@hidden> wrote:
> but only unix files have magic file numbers correct?

No, I have "file" working on Win2k.

If, however, a system doesn't have magic files, CVS
can fallback on pattern matching filenames to set the
initial behaviours upon "cvs add".  The alternative
would be for CVS to implement its own magic system.

> > I agree.  This doesn't, however, cover all the
> > remaining issues with regards to extension
> checking:
> > 1. Extenstions don't have one-to-one mapping with
> file
> > types.
> > 2. Not all files have extensions (this is actually
> a
> > specific case of the former).
> > 
> > It's also not clear whether you're talking about
> using
> > extensions for the initial settings, or for the
> > life-time settings, of the file.  Do you think
> users
> > should be able to override whatever CVS thinks
> > "should" happen?
> > 
> > Noel
> 
> For the solid, predictable, common cases CVS could
> have out of the box 
> configurations.  For the not so clear cases, admins
> would 
> configure the perticular installation, and perhaps
> have to
> establish some conventions (naming) to isolate the
> file type.

Don't you think there'd be a huge discussion as to
what exactly constitutes "solid, predictable, common
cases"?  Even if key people agreed on this list, don't
you think it'll bloat CVS?

It sounds like you're saying that, once configured,
users cannot override the settings.  This is bad
since, as was stated before, extensions don't have a
one-to-one mapping to types.

> But, at least they have the options to do so if they
> need to.

Not if CVS has the final word as to the type of the
file (whether it's configured or not).

Noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com