On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 01:25:33PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote: > > Also, there is of course no guaranteed that no conflicting changes > > lead to a configuration file semantically sound, > That's the main problem I see with VCS like merge. The main problem is > that the merge result *should* be reviewed by the user. Will the user > always have the skills to spot the places where the merge was wrong ?
I can agree, at least in theory. But as we all known, due to how
source code tends to work, in 90% of the cases automatic merges do the
right thing. Well, of course I cannot prove that number, but my
personal feelings is that with a "high confidence" automatic merges do
the right thing.
> > but AFAIU you have no guarantee of that with Config::Model
> > either. They are both about syntax only.
>
> No Config::Model is all about checking the *semantic* of a
> configuration file. So you will have the guarantee that the
> resulting file is correct from the application point of view.
You know, in the general case it is an undecidable problem, so I
seriously doubt Config::Model can be the silver bullet. Possibly you
can get a good coverage of most of the files we have under /etc which
have a trivial structure (hence the questions raised by other people:
how many of those files in a typical installation you can cover?). But
then we are back at the issue of a 80-20 problem, and I see the VCS
solution as more flexible and more readily available. But again, it
looks to me that the two approaches can coexist.
... now it is only the two of us which needs to stop talking and start
proposing patches as needed :-)
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
