Re: core.autocrlf considered half-assed

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

 




On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Dmitry Potapov wrote:
> 
> Well, I agree there are some issues with it. In particularly, when
> someone changes core.autocrlf in his/her repository, and then git
> behavior is outright confusing. IMHO, the nuts of the problem is that
> does not store in the index how files were checkout. Instead it uses
> core.autocrlf, which specifies how the user _wants_ files to be check-
> out. So, when the autocrlf option changes, things get very confusing.

I do agree. It would probably have been a good idea to mark the CRLF 
status in the index, but we didn't. And crlf isn't actually the _only_ 
thing that can cause confusion, the 'ident' and 'filter' can do the same 
thing.

One option might be to have "git config" know about crlf, so that if you 
change crlf state with 'git config' rather than manually, we could at 
least _warn_ about the effects and tell people that they may need to do a 
full new checkout (or reset the stat info in the index, or whatever). But 
I like editing config files by hand, and I don't think I'm the only one.

			Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]