RE: cvswrappers - any better suggestions ?

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Sunday, April 1, 2001 at 14:00:20 (-0700), David Glick wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: cvswrappers - any better suggestions ?
>
> BTW, I *do* get it; I just don't agree with you.  I've spent most of
> 20+ years listening to people just like you explain why something
> shouldn't/couldn't be done, and then finding ways to make it happen
> anyway.  Clearly, other people feel the same way, because CVS does
> support binary files after a fashion.  I just want them supported
> better.

Clearly you do not get it at all.  CVS literally cannot support binary
files in any better fashion without becoming something that will no
longer be a "Concurrent Versions System".  It was designed specifically
to force concurrent editing and that design goal permeates the way it
works through and through (despite the valiant attempts by others to
bend it to suit their twisted ideas).  You cannot throw out the bath
water without throwing out the baby in this case -- they are one in the
same.

-- 
                                                        Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs