Re: An interaction with ce_match_stat_basic() and autocrlf

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Jan 8, 2008, 17:30 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0801080927370.3148@woody.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <fm0au5$i65$1@ger.gmane.org>

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Pēteris Kļaviņš wrote:

> 
> In summary, it irks me that autocrlf true mode is a second cousin of autocrlf
> false and I think that there *should* be an acceptable deterministic solution
> to this.

Well, I think the real issue is simply that most the main git developers do development on architectures where CRLF just isn't an issue.

So it's not that autocrlf is a "second cousin", it's that

 - CRLF is stupid to begin with, and slightly anathemical to the git 
   worldview of trying to be as exact as possible.

 - ..and almost nobody in the git community is actually affected, so 
   people don't even notice when it's an issue.

People who actually care and use crlf are probably best off sending in test-cases for particular behaviour they notice.

		Linus