syncing two pcs

[Donald Allen]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Mike or Penny Novack
<stepbystepfarm at mtdata.com> wrote:
> Flynn, Oweson O wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I have found a stunning app for M$ Windows, that allows you to
>>synchronise both ways - it shows you which one is newer, can show you
>>only differences - well worth a look at - it will allow you to keep your
>>copy of your data file synchronised.
>>
>>I use it to sync the Outlook PST mail files between my work machine and
>>my home PC - I copy the files onto a USB drive, and use it to update the
>>older copy (which ever one that is).
>>
>>The App is called 'Beyond Compare 2' - go look at
>>http://www.scootersoftware.com/
>>
>>Hope this helps!
>>
>>
> Misconception? Misunderstanding/disagreement about the term "newer".
>
> In the third example I was NOT meaning to imply that a program could not
> be written to do exactly what you just described. Use "time stamp" to
> mediate the decision about which version/changes to use. Thus the
> program would always give a definite result (the result of the
> PARTICULAR merge would be defined, reproducible). The problem is however
> that we are dealing with ASYNCHRONOUS events. Real time isn't
> meaningful, just "states".
>
> We start with one version of the data (initial state). We give this to
> two DISCONNECTED processes which can make changes. Afterwards we meant
> to return to one version of the data. It doesn't/shouldn't matter which
> process changed what and when during the time interval of separation. In
> general "which happens first" (which is SUPPOSED to happen first) is not
> well defined. That can be true even if the processes are running on the
> same multitasking computer --- it is what "queue on sharable resource"
> mechanisms are designed to mediate.
>
> Imagine the following scenario. A (text) document is given to two
> workers to edit with instructions "get this job done by the end of the
> day". At this point your "merge" application is supposed to operate. You
> expect anything other than gobbly-gook for the result? You expect
> changes not to be lost? You are willing to accept different results
> depending upon when during the day the two workers chose to tackle their
> assignment? Understand now? While using something of the sort you
> describe would produce well defined results in terms of a PARTICULAR
> data merge it would not produce a defined resulting text from the
> defined "assignment" (if you tried again, since the two workers might
> next time choose different times during the day to perform the assigned
> task, the results would not be the same).

Ever used CVS? It allows precisely the scenario you hypothesize, and
does the merge without losing any changes, flagging lexical conflicts.
Of course, it can't detect logical conflicts in simultaneous code
changes, but that's not what you were talking about.

/Don


>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> -----
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>