[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: binary files bad idea? why?
From: |
Pierre Asselin |
Subject: |
Re: binary files bad idea? why? |
Date: |
Thu, 20 May 2004 20:41:57 -0400 |
User-agent: |
tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.19-7.0.1 (i586)) |
Jim.Hyslop <address@hidden> wrote:
> Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
>> This is no problem from my experience if the initial check-in was done
>> from a Unix (LF-) based system, but it is a problem if it was
>> done from
>> a DOS (CR/LF-) based system.
> There is also a remote possibility that the binary file might _happen_ to
> contain what CVS thinks is a keyword, such as $Id$. Chances are pretty slim,
> but it _could_ happen.
But the $Id$ expansion occurs on checkout. The repository copy itself
would still be intact, and problems with the file would be fixed by a
"cvs admin -kb". Working copies could be restored with "cvs update".
- Re: binary files bad idea? why?, (continued)
- Re: binary files bad idea? why?, Spiro Trikaliotis, 2004/05/19
- RE: binary files bad idea? why?, Fouts Christopher (), 2004/05/19
- RE: binary files bad idea? why?, Jim.Hyslop, 2004/05/19
- RE: binary files bad idea? why?, Christopher.Fouts, 2004/05/19
- RE: binary files bad idea? why?, address@hidden, 2004/05/19
- RE: binary files bad idea? why?, Jim.Hyslop, 2004/05/20
- Re: binary files bad idea? why?,
Pierre Asselin <=
- RE: binary files bad idea? why?, Jim.Hyslop, 2004/05/21