Re: Coflict marker detection proposal

[Greg A. Woods]

[ 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>