cvs diff, proposal for change

Greetings, all. I keep seeing questions and comments in the list about cvs diff, especially about how it is not useful for files holding data other than plain text. I see even Andreas Klauer's recent question "normalizing files and old revisions" (

cvs diff, proposal for change

This is my second attempt to post this question. The first has not appeared on the list; neither have I received a bounce message. Please accept my apology if you receive it twice. Greetings, all. I keep seeing questions and comments in the list about cvs diff, especially about how it is not us

Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

[ On Wednesday, September 3, 2003 at 13:07:52 (-0400), Terrence Enger wrote: ] > Subject: cvs diff, proposal for change > > In general, the concensus of those in the know has been > negative: cvs diff is so far from working with arbitrary files > that it is not even worth thinking

Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

The CVS design is not so married to the diff program that it could not be swapped out at a low level for more appropriate tools. (Keep in mind that somewhere in the CVS implementation it effectively invokes a "diff" or "diff3" command. That command could really be anything, as long as it's approp

Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

At 15:56 2003-09-04 -0400, "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[ On Wednesday, September 3, 2003 at 13:07:52 (-0400), Terrence Enger wrote: ] > > Subject: cvs diff, proposal for change > > > > In general, the concensus of those in the know has been

Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

On 3 Sep, Terrence Enger wrote: > (*) "cvs diff" and "cvs rdiff" accept optional arguments > --filter1=, --filter2=, > --filter-both=. Allow Unix-style pipelining of simple commands to extend diff functionality? Excellent idea! luke _

Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[ On Wednesday, September 3, 2003 at 13:07:52 (-0400), Terrence Enger wrote: ] >> Subject: cvs diff, proposal for change >> >> In general, the concensus of those in the know has been >> negative: cvs diff is so far fro

Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

[ On Thursday, September 4, 2003 at 18:25:43 (-0400), Terrence Enger wrote: ] > Subject: Re: cvs diff, proposal for change > > I would not dream of suggesting a change to that. Nor do I suggest > changing anything in the repository, or even in a sandbox. Properly doing what you sugg

Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

On 5 Sep, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > cvs already supports binary files to the extent of offering > > -kb. > > "CVS supports binary files"?!?!?!? No, I don't think so. The '-kb' > "sticky flag" is just a terribly bad hack that gets more people into > more trouble with CVS than you could

Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

[ On Monday, September 8, 2003 at 12:46:45 (+1000), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ] > Subject: Re: cvs diff, proposal for change > > But reading the above I'm wondering whether there's some other danger > that we're unaware of, that would make us change our current methods.

slow list? [Was: Re: cvs diff, proposal for change]

On Wednesday 03 September 2003 21:16, Terrence Enger wrote: > This is my second attempt to post this question. The first > has not appeared on the list; neither have I received a > bounce message. Please accept my apology if you receive it > twice. Is it just me or is the mailing list extremely

Re: slow list? [Was: Re: cvs diff, proposal for change]

[ On Thursday, September 4, 2003 at 18:24:51 (+0200), Andreas Klauer wrote: ] > Subject: slow list? [Was: Re: cvs diff, proposal for change] > > Is it just me or is the mailing list extremely slow? Unless you've been living under a rock for the past month you'll know that th

Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

Greg A. Woods wrote: 1. keep your binary files in a separate manually managed archive. ... "CVS supports binary files"?!?!?!? No, I don't think so. The '-kb' "sticky flag" is just a terribly bad hack that gets more people into more trouble with CVS than you could ever imagine because it gets mis

Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was cvs diff, proposal for change

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Tom Copeland wrote: > On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 16:00, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > I can import gigabytes and terabytes of binaries into CVS too, but no > > matter how much I try I'll never be able to use branches meaningfully in > > such a repository, > > Hm. Do CVS branches not wo

Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was cvs diff, proposal for change

On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 12:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Tom Copeland wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 16:00, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > > I can import gigabytes and terabytes of binaries into CVS too, but no > > > matter how much I try I'll never be able to use branches meaningfully in

Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was cvs diff, proposal for change

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Tom Copeland wrote: > On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 12:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Tom Copeland wrote: > > > On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 16:00, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > > > I can import gigabytes and terabytes of binaries into CVS too, but no > > > > matter how much I try

Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was cvs diff, proposal for change

On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 13:06, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Tom Copeland wrote: > > Right... although in the case of 3rd party libraries, the line gets a > > bit blurry. If my project depends on, say, BCEL, I think it's > > reasonable for me to check the BCEL jar file into my module/lib

Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was cvs diff, proposal for change

>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 12:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Tom Copeland wrote: >> > On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 16:00, Greg A. Woods wrote: >> > > I can import gigabytes and terabytes of binaries into CVS too, but no >> > > matter how much I try I'

Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was cvs diff, proposal for change

>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Tom Copeland wrote: >> On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 12:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Tom Copeland wrote: >> > > On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 16:00, Greg A. Woods wrote: >> > > > I can import gigabytes and terabytes of binaries in

Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

[ On Monday, September 8, 2003 at 13:48:30 (-0400), David Clunie wrote: ] > Subject: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was Re: cvs diff, > proposal for change > > We have several terabytes of binary files stored in a CVS repository. big is not necessarily be

Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 16:00, Greg A. Woods wrote: > I can import gigabytes and terabytes of binaries into CVS too, but no > matter how much I try I'll never be able to use branches meaningfully in > such a repository, Hm. Do CVS branches not work right with binary files? I've used repositories

Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 14:53, Greg A. Woods wrote: > [ On Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 10:10:46 (-0400), Tom Copeland wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was Re:cvs > > diff, proposal for change > > > > Hm. Do CVS branches

Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

[ On Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 10:10:46 (-0400), Tom Copeland wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was Re: cvs > diff, proposal for change > > Hm. Do CVS branches not work right with binary files? It depends on what you mean by &quo

Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was Re: cvs diff, proposal for change

> On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 14:53, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > [ On Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 10:10:46 (-0400), Tom Copeland wrote: ] > > > Subject: Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was Re: cvs > > > diff, proposal for change > > > >