Andreas Keil wrote:
>"Branko Cibej" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>>Granted that SVN's current translation between media type and binaryness
>>is simplistic, I don't think it's fundamentally wrong (even though a
>>better name for the property would be svn:content-type, but that's a minor
>It's not simplistic, it's wrong as text files are assumed to contain binary
All right then, "incomplete".
>And staying compatible with an error isn't a good idea in my opinion.
>That's why I suggested to remove this behaviour without having a good
>suggestion for solving the whole problem.
Our compatibility guarantees forbid us to remove behaviour, regardless
of your opinion. They do allow us to fix bugs in existing behaviour.
>>Or are you suggesting we add an equivalent to "Content-Transfer-Encoding?"
>>IMHO that's useful for mail, but not for Subversion.
>I learned from the discussion that it may not be easy or simple to come up
>with a solution to the text/binary classification problem.
I can't see why it should be such a hard problem. Media types do define,
in a general way, whether a file is text-like or not (yes, yes, "text/*"
isn't a good enough discrimintator, etc.). Therefore, on that front, all
that's really needed is a more complete list of text-like media types.
Today, Subversion only uses that information to determine if it's
allowed to diff and merge files. It's always been our plan to support
client-side diff plugins for different file types, and IMHO keying those
off the file's media type seems like the obvious thing to do. What this
boils down to is that SVN currently has one built-in diff plugin for
text-like files -- the feature is incomplete, not a bug.
And frankly, in this context, "diffable but not mergeable" is nonsense.
Later on, when diff/merge plugins can better discriminate the file
types, this issue (if it actually is an issue) will go away.
(We could obviourly create two lists of mime types today, one for
"text-diffable" content and one for "text-mergeable" content. But for
now, I don't see why these lists should be different.)
> That's why I
>can't vote for sth. here. However, I still think the current behaviour is
>unacceptable because it prevents me from using MIME type properties on eps,
>ps, tex, and x(ht)ml files.
When I read the word "unacceptable" on this list, my reflex says to
reply, "write a patch."
The only time you actually _need_ svn:mime-type is when you're serving
pages on a HTTP server directly from the repository.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sun Sep 25 03:46:32 2005