[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Forcing DOS line endings on checkout/update

From: Thornley, David
Subject: RE: Forcing DOS line endings on checkout/update
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:05:16 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 12:31 PM
> To: 'address@hidden'
> Subject: Re: Forcing DOS line endings on checkout/update
> "Thornley, David" <address@hidden> writes:
> >  So far, it doesn't seem to have annoyed anybody
> > enough to make them submit a proper patch,
> That depends on your definition of "proper". If you mean "a patch
> including test cases", then you are correct. However, as I mentioned
> in my last message, a patch *was* submitted by Philippe Payant on 13
> Dec, 2000.
There is a great deal of difference between a patch that is ready to
apply and a patch that has much of what is necessary.  If I were
maintaining CVS, I'd also be dubious of a patch that has comments
wondering if the code really should be doing something else (specifically,
whether it should check for CRLF appearing in a bogus environment).

> > and there haven't been enough
> > complaints to make any of the more active developers do anything.
> It isn't that there haven't been enough complaints (there's been
> plenty (no, I don't mean from the same people!) - I've saved them and
> can send you a digest if you want ;-), it's that the active developers
> cannot be convinced.
Actually, another comment made me think why the active developers may not
be being convinced.

As long as you use the file where you check it out, CVS works just fine.
It's only when you share files between (most likely) Unix and MS Windows
that you have a problem. As long as I've been on this list, people have been
very strongly advised not to do that, since there is a threat of file
corruption.  (To quote George Carlin as the Hippy-Dippy Weatherman, "The
radar is also picking up a flight of Russian ICBMs, so I wouldn't sweat
the thundershowers.")

How many people have made this request when they aren't mounting directories
cross-platform with Samba?  If I were to see a digest, I'd like to see
these requests removed.

Now, if you'd like to talk about why CVS doesn't necessarily work well with
and Samba, that would be a different question.

> > At a glance, it looks like Subversion will assume binary 
> mode more readily,
> > but I didn't see anything about incorporating line-ending 
> conversion.
> I'm just hoping that since it's a newer project, less entrenched in
> its ways, and they're actively trying to capture new users, that they
> will be more open to suggestions in general, and since this is a
> common request (not only because it is useful, but because people are
> used to having it on other source control systems), it seems likely
> that they'll be at least receptive enough to listen.
Could be.  On the other hand, this isn't basically as simple as people
seem to be implying, and the really simple parts are usually easy to
work around.  

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]