Re: CVS corrupts binary files ...

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Tuesday, June 8, 2004 at 16:21:03 (-0700), Mark D. Baushke wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVS corrupts binary files ... 
>
> In my view, CVS was designed to add a model of
> concurrent modification and automatic merges on
> top of the previously existing Revision Control
> System representation of files. The removal of
> exclusive locking for changes is the fundamental
> reason that CVS exists.

Yes, that's true.

> It may be that the diff3 algorithm is not always
> the best one suited to do such mergers. 

That may be true, but the use of the traditional diff and diff3
algorithms for detecting and merging changes in the managed files is a
direct concequence of the fact CVS is built on top of RCS and RCS has no
alternative to using, and no _real_ way to specify any alternative, to
these algorithms (at least not without breaking RCS compatability).

> I believe that adding flexibility to CVS as to
> what program should be used in place of diff3 for
> doing a merge operation is desirable.

It might be desirable but it's not really possible without giving up on
the use of RCS in the back-end -- or at least without giving up on
backwards compatabiltiy with other RCS tools.

It's not really necessary either.

There are lots of alternatives.

People just need to learn to use the right tool for the job and to quit
being so bloody narrow minded when it comes to learning about new tools.

-- 
                                                Greg A. Woods

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