On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_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
Received on 2013-01-31 20:24:24 CET