On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 09:42 -0600, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> "Michael Pilato" <email@example.com> writes:
> > Bah. We've always had entries-file data and 'svn info' output to
> > accurately reveal the correct names of conflict files, if any. If folks
> > are careless enough to write scripts that completely ignore easily
> > query-able sources of canonical information like that in favor of whack
> > guesses based on file naming schemes, I've no sympathy for them.
> No, the issue isn't discovering the name -- that part's easy. The
> issue is that when you load these files into editors (or other
> programs) that use file-extension as a way of determining file type,
> then all of a sudden things don't work right.
> File extensions have been a semi-standardized source of information
> for many, many years. I feel like it's Subversion that's misbehaving
> here: when we add our own extension, we're blowing away useful data.
> If adding our own extension were our only choice, I'd say fine, let's
> do it. But there's no need for it -- we could just as easily put the
> Subversion-specific portion elsewhere in the filename.
I agree, and I think you simply misunderstood me.
I wasn't bah'ing the idea of preserving the file extension when
generating conflict files -- I'm so +1 on that. I was bah'ing the idea
that Subversion's use of .mine and .rNN provide, in and of themselves,
some sort of contract with our users.
C. Michael Pilato <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Thu Jan 5 19:51:49 2006