On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 07:35:07PM +0100, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > > > I suppose we should improve Subversion's behaviour here by issuing a > > > warning if Subversion's own binary-file detection code doesn't identify > > > the file as binary when the user sets a binary mime-type. > > > > > > What do you think about that? > > > > > > svn: warning: 'application/xml' is a binary mime-type but file '%s' > looks > > > like text; diff, merge, blame, and other operations will stop working > on > > > this file > > > > > > This way, we point out the cause of the problem when it first appears, > > > rather than later. > > > > > > > Yeah, that is something nice from the user POV, as it would lessen the > > chance of screwups. > > Ok great! I'll try to make this happen. > ty. > > > Would it be possible to tell them to somehow show in there that only > > plain/*, image/x-xbitmap and image/x-xpixmap mimetypes can be used for > > those operations? > > I think that would be too detailed. I also don't like the fact that > there is a list of mime-types which are considered text. > yeah, I also thought until now that only plain/* is considered as text for svn. > > The official mime-type list is not maintained by Subversion, and it would > be silly to attempt to keep up-to-date with the official list. > uhm, you mean this isn't maintened by the subversion team? http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_subr/validate.c?view=markup#l94 maybe you are confusing this with the optional libmagic which is used for distinguishing between the various binary types? > > Because of that, I think it was a mistake to document these two 'image/*' > types as text. Just saying "no mime-type property or a text/* mime-type > property indicates textual content" would have been better. > I think that they should either no exceptions but only plain/* or they should be documented as they are currently. > > > Ofc. this still wouldn't help much if you already has a file with a > "wrong" > > mimetype and bump into the Skipping binary file error message. > > Fair enough. > I'd be willing to extend the existing error message as follows: > > Skipping file which is considered binary in one or more revisions (use > --force to treat as text): 'foo/bar.xml' > > Would that be good enough? > yes! ps: I've just realized that the gmail reply all feature was ccing myself for my every reply. weird. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
