Re: RDF merge (Re: [Gzz] PR)

[Tuomas Lukka]

On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 03:38:50PM +0300, Tuukka Hastrup wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> > > I think with simple NTriples syntax it could actually be reasonable to 
> > > resolve these manually in the infrequent cases where they occur...
> > 
> > I agree - the really important thing here is that we *CAN* do that since
> > thing would be rather more comprehensible than with the earlier gzz stuff.
> 
> I wouldn't think manually resolving CVS conflicts is ever reasonable. 

It's far better than an automatic, *bad* resolver.

> CVS 
> knows nothing about the file format in question; 

It understands lines which is already a lot.

> I presume that inserting 
> RDF triple lines into a list in alphabetical order would result in high 
> propability of two edits occuring next to each other. 

High probability, *if* the edits concern the same node, in which case it *is*
actually good to notice it.

> > > >As long as we save into CVS, we will have some kind of conflict 
> > > >problems, 
> > > >I think. But how far are we from using Mediaserver architecture again?
> > > 
> > > That wouldn't solve the problem: we'd still have conflicts and would 
> > > still have to deal with them!
> > 
> > Indeed.
> 
> We would solve the problem of CVS messing up our files with its horrible 
> conflict syntax.

That's far better than some system that thinks it knows what we want messes up 
the 
actual *DATA*, without telling anyone.
        
Besides, CVS is the fastest way for now to get *STARTED*. 

        Tuomas