On Sun, 9 May 2010, Dmitry Potapov wrote: > > explanation could be easily avoided by renaming 'crlf' as 'eol'. What the heck is wrong with people? > Now, if you look at this: > > *.sln -eol > *.jpg -eol > *.txt eol > *.[ch] eol Right. Look at it. It's totally incomprehensible. It's _worse_ than "crlf" as a name. What the f*ck does "jpg" have to do with "eol"? Nothing. You could talk about "binary" vs "text", and it would make sense, but your argument that "eol" is somehow better than "crlf" is just insane. So I could certainly see *.jpg binary *.txt text making sense. But "eol" is certainly no better than "crlf". In the end, crlf is what we have. We're not getting rid of it, so if somebody were to actually rename it, that would just mean that there are _two_ different ways to say the same thing. And quite frankly, I think that's worse than what we have now, so I don't think it's worth it. 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