Re: CVS Update Behaviour

[Paul Sander]

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>[ On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 at 01:29:49 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: CVS Update Behaviour
>>
>> >BTW, 'patch' is a _standard_ Unix tool.  It's documented in The Single
>> >UNIX Specification, and it will be in IEEE Std. 1003.2b.
>> 
>> Fine.  So are "cut" and "paste".  You don't use them (preferring to
>> use something else that better fits your need, see quote below), so
>> why should my colleagues use "patch" if they prefer using something
>> else that better fits their need?

>So, if we take this squirming full circle then what better tools do you
>and your colleagues use to apply changes in the form of diff output to
>files?

We skirt the issue entirely and avoid passing diff output around.  We
keep complete copies of the files that concern us, and use a merge tool.

>If you really can't figure out the difference between knowing which tool
>in the toolbox is best to use for a given situation, and not even
>knowing what tools are in the toolbox in the first place, then you
>really should think twice before perpetuating debates such as these with
>your ill-informed ideas.

We know which tool best fits our needs for a given situation, and very
rarely is it named "patch".  Like you, we pick and choose the tools we
need to get the job done and ignore the rest.  It just so happens that
our toolbox contains different stuff from yours.  Our toolbox works
just fine for us, so get over it.

>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden