* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000215 15:22] wrote:
>
> Let's take a break from the regularly scheduled passive-agressive
> flamefest and think about an imaginary Versioning System (iVS)
> that meets the features that are being talked about. Here's the
> first thought off the top of my head:
>
> 1) Use some kind of MIME file-type mapping to control settings
> for locking/concurrency (so that your source files are controlled
> concurrently but images use hard locks)
>
> 2) Use similar by-file-type mappings to controll the diff and
> sync algorithms used (standard text diff for ascii or unicode,
> something like Xdelta for your PNGs)
>
> Such a system could be configured to behave no differently than
> the current CVS, or it could be configured to always require
> hard locks, or something in between.
>
> I suppose you could set the mappings by project subdirectory too,
> in case you wanted specialized control somewhere.
>
> Ok, everybody tell me why this can't be done or why I'm talking
> to the wrong list.
>
> [ducks and runs]
The reason you're talking on the wrong list is that it seems that
most of maintainers of CVS currently have a 'philosophy'.
It seems that in the last couple of years philosophy has been the
thing to strive for rather than program correctness.
Instead of all these warning lights on all the junk that doesn't
work in CVS it should either be ripped out or the maintainers should
allow fixes to be incorperated!
Imagine someone's dismay at fixing things like symlink support or
locks only to be told that "we want it broken".
Somehow I feel this to be somewhat of a sadistic thing to do to
users as well as misusing the whole concept of open source.
I can understand a stance where CVS developers refuse to work on
problem reports with locking or symlinks because they don't want
to deal with it, but refusing patches that fix real problems is
pretty bogus.
The really terrible part is that the suggested ways of locking and
doing symlinks work... but only half the time, other times it leaves
grabage in the repository that a newbie will have a hell of a time
trying to clean up after's CVS's malicous 'philosophy'.
Time and time again people have come forward with strong arguments
for real locks along with an occasional fix, only to be dismissed
and told that CVS isn't a management tool.
<sarcasm>
To preserve this philosophy how about removing conflict detection
and resolution, when someone commits a file it automagically spams
any other changes...
"Don't like that? Too bad, you ought to be communicating, CVS isn't
a management tool, talk to the program director every time you edit
a file."
</sarcasm>
Seriously folks, the issues with locking and symlinks should up to
the community to decide... as long as they are the ones doing the
work and it doesn't impact on non-locking/non-link CVS functionality.
But that doesn't seem possible with the current maintainers being so
blinded by thier own philosophy. And unfortunatly no one with
enough resources to actively maintain something has forked a version
of CVS that is committed to doing the right thing.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
