Hi, On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > On Feb 3, 2008, at 11:29 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > However, safe_crlf != SAFE_CRLF_FALSE does not affect people who did > > not set core.crlf = input or core.crlf = true. And for those who set > > core.crlf, the default makes sense, absolutely. > > I add a comment to the commit message. > > However, I don't fully agree with your comment. If your Unix > environment is as sane as you assume and you never exchange any data > with the "cursed" people, you can safely set core.autocrlf=input and > core.safecrlf=warn and still should never see any warning. Well you'd > spent some CPU cycles on verifying that your assumptions hold. It is not only about spend CPU cycles. It is about content-tracking. Personally, I have no single repository which munges data when putting it into the index. That is what the crlf handling is: munging. I want the data verbatim, and if I decide to check in a file with carriage return before line feed, then so be it. Of course, the code paths in your patch would be less exercised, and bugs/interactions could be conveniently hidden for all those who decide not to activate safecrlf like me, but I do not see why Linux/Unix people should be punished for a shortcoming that affects only projects which partly work on Windows, and then only if non-POSIX tools are used. Ciao, Dscho - 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
