Re: [PATCH] Issue 2213 - forcing some files to be considered binary (and thus making emails smaller)

On 22/01/2009, at 11.31, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:05, Jon Bendtsen <jbendtsen_at_laerdal.dk>
> wrote:
>> On 21/01/2009, at 14.39, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>> For this patch, it seems that you want to just set the "binary" flag
>>> at the appropriate point. The attached patch will throw out all of
>>> the
>>> potential label information about the changed revision and
>>> timestamp.
>>> If you want to keep the "Forced Binary" annotation in there, then
>>> maybe append that to the label?
>>
>> maybe i do. But i definately want to make sure that the label gets
>> there.
>> But is there something wrong with the way i did it?
>
> Yes. As I already said: it throws out the changed-date and
> changed-revision information that is normally defined in the labels.

can you provide an example of what you would like the output, the email
to look like?

>>> I'll also note that you can use change.path.endswith('.' + ending)
>>> rather than the regular expression stuff.
>>
>> Why is that better?
>
> Because it is much faster and clearer than using a regular expression.

Okay, i see i will look at the solution.

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1043025
Received on 2009-01-22 11:56:03 CET