[ On Tuesday, March 5, 2002 at 16:12:24 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVS and Jar files: Should you import Jar into the Repository? Why or
>why not
>
> RCS stores binary files just fine, though perhaps not as efficiently as
> most ASCII files. All that is needed is that they come out bit-for-bit
> identical to what went in for any given revision.
There are some corner cases where RCS does not do bit-for-bit binary reproduction.
Some of them are indeed irrelevant to the majority of file formats
people seem to use, but for some reason there are still an exceptional
number of complaints in this very forum of instances where people's
binaries have been messed up due to one problem or another.
> I've already proven that CVS can be modified to accomodate new data types
> by integrating new merge tools, and still retain its concurrent editing
> capabilities.
Proof is in the pudding. Where's your working, interoperable, code?
> And it doesn't force anything with "patch". We've already had this argument;
> CVS falls back on something else if "patch" isn't available.
CVS doesn't "fall back" -- it backs out completely leaving the user in
the lurch, and giving little or no useful guidance to deal with the issue.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
