Re: [PATCH v7] safecrlf: Add mechanism to warn about irreversible crlf conversions

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Feb 4, 2008, 15:01 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.1.00.0802041457190.7372@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <86F2B863-6FE8-407E-B535-3F49782DA5F9@zib.de>

Hi,

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Steffen Prohaska wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> 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