"Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
