>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Paul Sander wrote:
>> --- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Woods)
>> >Think about it: You've got some changes you are about to commit that
>> >include changes to a file which you've tagged as un-mergable (i.e. it is
>> >a binary, opaque, file). As you run "cvs commit" you discover that
>> >someone else has simultaneously made changes to that file. Now what?
>> >You can't even use "cvs diff" to find out what the heck they did! You
>> >can only guess by investigating their revision comments and/or by asking
>> >them out-of-band. If the file has some structure that's visible in some
>> >other medium than a text editor (eg. it's a JPEG) then you can perhaps
>> >visually compare your revision, the ancestor revision, and the other
>> >person's new revision.
>>
>> Okay, now suppose you have a type manager that can invoke the proper merge
>> tool for the file's content. The merge proceeds and the user resolves
>> conflicts normally. No big deal.
>>
>> Oh yeah, there's that problem where different versions might contain
>> different types of data. Again, files containing different types of
>> data should have different version histories. Unfortunately, CVS in
>> its current form requires a unique mapping between version histories
>> and working files, so people use it improperly because they have no
>> alternative that meets more pressing requirements.
>There is the example of, say, GIF to JPEG. That could be considered mergable with
>a proper tool.
In that case, create a generic "graphic" type that you can use to store
either GIF or JPEG images, and invoke the proper merge tool.
>--- End of forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
