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 work right
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
such
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 I'll never be
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
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 not work right with binary files
--- 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'll never be
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 not work right with binary files
--- 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 into CVS too, but
[ 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.
As far as I know
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
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 ever
On 3 Sep, Terrence Enger wrote:
(*) cvs diff and cvs rdiff accept optional arguments
--filter1=programname, --filter2=programname,
--filter-both=programname.
Allow Unix-style pipelining of simple commands to extend diff
functionality?
Excellent idea!
luke
[ 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 there's another major rash
[ 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 suggest requires
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
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
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
[ 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 about changing
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
