> I disargee. Doing this would force a policy onto CVS > users where such a policy isn't really necessary. > > I think using extensions for any decision making is > bad. Don't you think it would be bad to force the > same diff/merge onto several files that had no > extension? > > There's two important issues here, really: > 1. The default diff/merge for a new file. > 2. The actual diff/merge of an existing file. > > Greg is talking about the second issue. I have an > inkling keeping this info on a per-version basis won't > work but I haven't come up with anything substantial. > > I'm not sure which issue you're talking about. If > it's the second, then using extensions would not allow > anyone to override the diff/merge for any reason > thereby putting the users at the mercy of CVS.
Actually pattern matching would put the users at the mercy of CVS more then extension ( really I mean wild card ) matching. Pattern matching could be very unreliable and produce different results based on the content of the document per version, when the format per version has not changed. Wild card matching puts the users in the drivers seat. You can control how CVS will work with your files with naming conventions. I think programmers are smart enough to follow naming conventions, and understand the consequences of breaking the conventions. sean. _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
