Re: EOL strangeness

From: Graham Sanderson <graham.sanderson@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 20, 2011, 16:29 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTimLFT48HCeFcqO_gn0XeBYkH=n8e124Y5RznLuC@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D37F853.1020805@lsrfire.ath.cx>

Thanks, I think it must have been a bug - I realized that even though I thought I was on the latest git, I had an older copy hiding in my path; once I upgraded the problem went away.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:54 AM, René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> wrote:

Show 40 quoted lines

> Am 17.01.2011 20:56, schrieb Graham Sanderson:
>> Apologies if someone has answered this before:
>>
>> So we have moved some big teams over to git (awesome thx), and have
>> been using the msysgit default core.autocrlf=true on Windows, and
>> making sure text files are LF on other platforms
>>
>> However we do continue to have a few problems with people storing CRLF
>> in the repository (partly because of lack of understanding, and partly
>> it seems because of eGit on windows which ignores core.autocrlf).
>>
>> Anyway, this much is all fine, and we can fix; what I don't understand
>> is why for files stored as CRLF in the repository it seems
>> indeterminate when or if they show up locally modified (on my window
>> box with core.autocrlf = true) when I pull them from the repository. I
>> assume the idea is that that they "would be" modified if I were to
>> check them in, since they would be converted to LF, however this only
>> happens sometimes and for a seemingly random subset of the files
>> stored incorrectly.
>>
>> It also seems to depend on the state of the local index, as recreating
>> the local index often changes the set of files that are displayed this
>> way (even without any changes to the files), and it also seems to be
>> different on different machines (perhaps based on when they happened
>> to pull code).
>>
>> If anyone can give me a quick mental picture of how this is supposed
>> to work (i.e. at what time the eol conversions are considered) then
>> that'd be great... otherwise I guess I'll go dig in the code.
>
> Perhaps this recent thread is of interest to you, even though it's on a
> slightly different topic and inconclusive:
>
>        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/163794
>
> It would be nice to have the expectations in your case codified in a
> test script -- based on the documentation, if possible.
>
> René
>