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.
Cheers, Matt. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Riechers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Matthew Versluys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 at > > least takes much longer than I'm willing to wait) and has to be killed. If > > you perform a cvs annotate on a folder which contains binary files the same > > result occurs. > > > > Cheers, > > Matt. > > So don't do that. What type of non-mergable (binary) file can have arbitrary > text usefully inserted into it? Help me understand this... > > -Matt > > _______________________________________________ > Info-cvs mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
