[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Coflict marker detection proposal
From: |
Greg A. Woods |
Subject: |
Re: Coflict marker detection proposal |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:47:28 -0400 (EDT) |
[ On Monday, July 16, 2001 at 18:14:00 (-0400), Noel L Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Coflict marker detection proposal
>
> I have one text file that has these patterns. No, I don't want to change it.
> It needs to stay as is.
Add a space to the beginning of each line and get over it.
> Let's say the sole purpose of the file was to contain these patterns, what
> then?
Lame pointless non-examples need not apply. "Don't call us, we'll (not)
call you." I.e. don't be stupid about this.
> Are you now going to dictate that I should never have such a need?
No, I'm only going to dictate that if you have such a need then you have
to find some way to "hide" it to prevent CVS from thinking that it
contains a merge conflict. You can have the need for such patterns all
you want -- you just can't commit them unaltered to CVS, and if you know
what's good for you then you won't even want to in the first place.
> Keeping CVS more amenable to modular diff/merge tools is only a stupid waste
> of
> time to those who are religiously opposed to such a feature.
Now you're being an idiot. I'm not religiously opposed to pluggable
diff/merge tools -- I simply know that there's not even a proof of
concept implementation yet and there's not likely to be one soon.
Without even a trial implementation it's a concept that'll simply sit
and stagnate in a corner, no doubt continuing occasionally to rear its
ugly head and waste yet more time.
I am also extremely concerned about repository compatability issues.
> So you're going to make a change "without comment or review" as well.
Huh? No, I made the fix to my copy, and I implore that the same be done
ASAP in the public copy until consensus is reached.
> So what
> if it's a return to old behaviour? Two on this list have already commented
> against it. Only one is for it. I know open source is not democratic, but
> neither is it a dictatorstip.
Are you purposefully ignoring the concept of "consensus"? If I were the
dictator of CVS then you'd probably already not be a user of it (of your
own choice, of course)! ;-)
I've already offered two concessions that should make the original
behaviour meet everyone's needs. You continue to pose non-sensical
arguments and have yet to even present a *real* example of where there's
ever even an issue in the first place!
I also noted one other place where such a check is very necessary so as
to avoid further confusion and possible creation of errors. It occurs
to me that there's yet a third place too, and maybe even a fourth....
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <address@hidden> <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>
- Re: Coflict marker detection proposal, Noel L Yap, 2001/07/16
- Re: Coflict marker detection proposal, Noel L Yap, 2001/07/16
- RE: Coflict marker detection proposal, Jimmy Rimmer, 2001/07/16
- Re: Coflict marker detection proposal, Noel L Yap, 2001/07/17
- Re: Coflict marker detection proposal, Noel L Yap, 2001/07/17