On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Andy Parkins wrote: > > If you define "work" as "works like cvs/svn does", then I was fine with > it. I can't really argue against that. Yes, I agree 100% that we can "work" in the sense that "cvs/svn works". There's clearly no fundamental reasons why you can't, since svn/cvs obviously do it. I just do have higher standards. I really dislike CVS, and in many ways I actually think that SVN is even worse (not because it's really "worse", but because I think it is such a waste - it fixes the _trivial_ things about CVS, but doesn't really fix any of the underlying problems). So I don't actually think that CVS "works". > Bit-for-bit as in CRLF is untouched? No? Bit-for-bit as in you said > you were okay with keyword-collapsing but not expansion? You're just > as willing to compromise as me, you've just drawn the line in a > different place. Bit-for-bit as in "you have to be able to trust every single bit". And no, I don't actually love CRLF either. But it doesn't have quite the same fundamental problems. It has issues too, but they are fundamentally smaller, and I think making "git compatible with Windows" is also a lot more important than making "git compatible with CVS users". Windows we cannot change. CVS users we can try to help. 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