On 23/01/2009, at 15.32, Jon Bendtsen wrote:
> 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.
yeah, i did, and also found some more things i should test for, as i
tested it with changing a file name from a forced binary to a text.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1045023
On 23/01/2009, at 15.32, Jon Bendtsen wrote:
> 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.
yeah, i did, and also found some more things i should test for, as i
tested it with changing a file name from a forced binary to a text.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1045023
Received on 2009-01-23 17:13:40 CET