Re: binary files bad idea? why?

[Yves Martin]

"Greg A. Woods" <address@hidden> writes:

> [ On Friday, July 2, 2004 at 12:34:42 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>> Subject: RE: binary files bad idea? why?
>>
>> >--- Forwarded mail from Greg Woods:
>> 
>> >It is literally _impossible_ to manually resolve (with any degree of
>> >correctness) any three way merge with conflicts in any ``binary'' file,
>> >regardless of whether it has been encoded as text or not.
>> 
>> It IS possible, using a tools that understand the content of the file.
>
> Paul you sure like to split hairs and spread confusion to the masses,
> and far more than you admit to doing.
>
> I thought we had agreed a half dozen years ago ore more that the
> definition of "binary file" as the phrase is usually used in this forum
> means "binary opaque file".  I thought you'd at least account for this
> interpretation if I used double quotes, but clearly you'd rather debate
> meaningless nonsense regardless.
>
> I.e. it is not possible, by definition, to resolve merge conflicts in
> any ``binary'' file.  Period.

 Close to the subject, I would like to know how a unicode file should
 be added in CVS ? Is it OK to add it as a text file ?

 It is a text file with binary codes BUT the format is not "opaque" at
 all.

 I have heard about the "-ku" option in WinCVS and CVSNT. But such a
 option is useless if diff and other tools are not able to
 "understand" UTF8, isn't it ?

 Regards,
-- 
Yves Martin