Re: giving up CVS

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Friday, September 14, 2001 at 22:06:34 (GMT), Kaz Kylheku wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: giving up CVS
>
> What exactly do you mean by ``tracking''? CVS can ``handle'' unmergeable
> files in a reasonable way. It can store version of them, allow you to
> tag them, branch them, retrieve past versions and all that.

Yes, of course it can, but does not mean it is suited for doing so.  Any
user who begins to look at how to use CVS effectively, but who has
binary files to deal with, will inevitably trip over things that CVS
cannot do with binary files, things that CVS will not always warn it
cannot do.

> CVS can trivially merge a binary file change, when the substrate
> against which it is being merged has not changed: e.g. the binary file
> has changed in the branch, but not the trunk. No problem, the branch
> version supersedes and everything is cool.

Sure -- even merging of binary files works SOMETIMES.  Those are not the
cases we worry about, or that people trip over.

that's without even beginning to consider the issues invoked by the
necessity of using '-kb' to convince your CVS client to not translate
line separators into whatever's needed for your client host, and all the
limitations that raises, or the need for careful use of '-ko' even in
unix homogenous environments where RCS keyword expension must be
avoided.

Just don't use CVS for binary files and you'll be far better off and
much happier in the end.

-- 
                                                        Greg A. Woods

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