Re: Coflict marker detection proposal

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Monday, July 16, 2001 at 10:23:03 (-0400), Noel L Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Coflict marker detection proposal (Was: How well does CVS        
>  handle other types of data?)
>
> OK, so let's discuss it now.
> 
> If conflict marker detection were introduced, it would do one of a few things:

"RE-introduced"  (actually it's already there -- it just has to be
*RETURNED* to being an error.

> 1. prevent checkin of files that legitimately had a conflict marker.

Absolutely!

> 2. force kludges in such files just to be able to check them in.

"kludge" is a nasty word.  "Syntactic sugar" is much closer to being
both correct and connotatively ideal.  Show me files that need syntactic
sugar first though....  (Even "sanity.sh" gets by quite well because it
normally has to hide most such patterns from its own RE parsing.)

Of course if '-kb' is going to inhibit use of the diff3 algorithm then
it may as well inhibit subsequent conflict marker detection too....

> 3. enable marking such files so conflict detection is never done.

Huh?

> It would also needlessly further tie in diff3 into CVS greatly inhibiting any
> pluggable diff/merge solution in the future.

Huh?  Now you're not thinking clearly either.

> OTOH, if developers wanted something like this, they can use a commitinfo 
> script
> now.

That's not sufficient.

-- 
                                                        Greg A. Woods

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