On 22/01/2009, at 11.41, Jon Bendtsen wrote:
>
> 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 have provided an example myself:
"Author: jbend
Date: Mon Jan 19 16:16:26 2009
New Revision: 25306
Log:
- updated
Modified:
module/trunk/server_sprints.xls
Modified: module/trunk/server_sprints.xls
=
=
=
=
=
=
========================================================================
Forced binary file (source and/or target). No diff available."
And i think i have figured out how to do it.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1044901
Received on 2009-01-23 16:02:38 CET