On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 08:36:35AM +0000, Benkstein, Frank wrote: > You are correct that it is also wrong in git v1.7.0. However, it is correct in > v2.4.0. > > Another bisect gave me this commit which was included in v2.0.1: > > commit 4d4813a52f3722854a54bab046f4abfec13ef6ae > Author: brian m. carlson <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat Apr 26 23:10:40 2014 +0000 > > blame: correctly handle files regardless of autocrlf > > So this still looks like a regression v2.5.0 to me. This commit was reverted because it was decided that it wasn't the right way to handle the problem and it broke other things. The complexity of the CRLF handling is a bit beyond me, to be honest. I'm sure I'd understand it better if I used it more, but I'm a Unix guy. I stand by my earlier statement that we should improve the documentation in this area, because it's a common source of confusion. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature