Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-svn: support fetch with autocrlf on
- From
Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@googlemail.com>
- Date
- Feb 13, 2010, 14:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <40aa078e1002130616u478397c0xf757d5424630e6cf@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20100213122532.GA31653@dcvr.yhbt.net>
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
Show 32 quoted lines
> Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@googlemail.com> wrote: >> If I enable core.autocrlf and perform a "git svn rebase" that fetches >> a change containing CRLFs, the git-svn meta-data gets corrupted. >> >> Commit d3c9634e worked around this by setting core.autocrlf to "false" >> in the per-repo config when initing the clone. However if the config >> variable was changed, the breakage would still occur. This made it >> painful to work with git-svn on repos with mostly checked in LFs on >> Windows. >> >> This patch tries to fix the same problem while allowing core.autocrlf >> to be enabled, by disabling filters when when hashing. >> >> git-svn is currently the only call-site for hash_and_insert_object >> (apart from the test-suite), so changing it should be safe. >> >> Signed-off-by: Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> >> --- >> >> With this patch applied, I guess we can also revert d3c9634e. I didn't >> do this in this series, because I'm lazy and selfish and thus only >> changed the code I needed to get what I wanted to work ;) >> >> I've been running git-svn with these patches with core.autocrlf enabled >> since December, and never seen the breakage that I saw before d3c9634e. > > Hi Erik, > > How does reverting d3c9634e affect dcommit? I've never dealt with (or > even looked at) autocrlf, so I'll put my trust in you and Dscho with > anything related to it. >
I don't think it affects svn dcommit in any way, except from the implicit svn rebase that svn dcommit performs. d3c9634e sets core.autocrlf to "false" on init, but re-enabling it hasn't shown any problems in my end. I'm using git-svn with these patches and core.autocrlf enabled every day at my day-job.
I'd say that reverting d3c9634e would be the Right Thing To Do(tm), because it makes git svn clone work just as bad as git clone, when cloning a repo with CRLFs in it ;)
-- Erik "kusma" Faye-Lund