[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bug in cvs annotate?

From: Matthew Versluys
Subject: Re: bug in cvs annotate?
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:42:50 -0800

I agree, there is no useful output of annotate on binary files so why not
handle it like the diff command and ignore non-mergable files.  Stepping
over binary files on an individual basis is not hard but because of the
folder behavior if you have any binary files lying around you can't annotate
folders.  I would call it a bug anyhow since cvs gets into a unrecoverable
state when it could just as easily report an error or ignore a request to
annotate a non-mergable file.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Riechers" <address@hidden>
To: "Matthew Versluys" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: bug in cvs annotate?

> > Matthew Versluys wrote:
> >
> > When running the 1.11.1p1 client and server and performing a cvs
annotate on a
> > binary file the NT command line client never completes the operation (or
> > least takes much longer than I'm willing to wait) and has to be killed.
> > you perform a cvs annotate on a folder which contains binary files the
> > result occurs.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Matt.
> So don't do that. What type of non-mergable (binary) file can have
> text usefully inserted into it? Help me understand this...
> -Matt
> _______________________________________________
> Info-cvs mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]