On 5/08/2009 6:00 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > Mark Hammond<skippy.hammond at gmail.com> writes: > >> As already mentioned in this thread, a capability similar to what svn >> or cvs offers would be sufficient. > > That capability presented by centralised VCSen is entirely dependent on > the fact that they *are* centralised. Using a distributed VCS means the > same capability doesn't apply. Why do you say that (without justification I might add <wink>) about this issue? >> While a DVCS does offer unique challenges, it seems to me that doing >> something at commit time without requiring magic hooks be configured >> would go a long way to addressing the problem. > > The hand-waving “doing something” is exactly what needs to be solved. I think you have been mis-reading this thread. It is quite clear what 'doing something' means in this context - it means implement the human-defined rules for the line-ending policy for the repository. >> Magic hooks on the official repo would then be considered the final >> fallback defense, but should rarely be invoked. > > Right, so that's “capability similar to centralised VCS” out of > consideration; I'm glad we agree in the end. I'm afraid you have lost me again, as clearly we don't agree on what useful things can be done at local commit time. >> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make > > That I disagree with your position. You seem to think that the problem > has an obvious solution, which is not true; and that choice of a > distributed VCS should be delayed until the problem is solved, which I > don't agree with. Fair enough - but it seems clear to enough of us that we can make progress and meet the requirements of the people actually impacted. > >> but I believe it *is* possible for a solution to be found here which >> will keep Windows users happy. I'm guessing you haven't had much >> practical experience with this problem, so probably don't see this is >> clearly as Windows users do. > > Your guess is incorrect; I've been bitten time and again by this problem > in many different contexts, enough to know that it's not obvious what > the “right” solution is. Sorry about that - but that was the only way I could explain you not seeing how such a solution can work. Cheers, Mark
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4