From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: CRLF problems with Git on Win32 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:50:22 +0100 Message-ID: <20080111195022.GC29189@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <7EAB1DA8-627D-455E-AA23-C404FDC615D9@zib.de> <930EC77A-73D1-4DDD-81D4-BF22B248FCB6@zib.de> <14E7B5D5-B1B8-4532-A471-106B14B912B8@zib.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Steffen Prohaska , Gregory Jefferis , Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 11 20:50:53 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JDPtz-0005wU-MZ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:50:52 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761336AbYAKTuU (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:50:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760323AbYAKTuU (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:50:20 -0500 Received: from pasmtpb.tele.dk ([80.160.77.98]:56309 "EHLO pasmtpB.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759779AbYAKTuS (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:50:18 -0500 Received: from ravnborg.org (0x535d98d8.vgnxx8.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk [83.93.152.216]) by pasmtpB.tele.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A58FE303F3; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:50:16 +0100 (CET) Received: by ravnborg.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id A949F580D2; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:50:22 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:16:02AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > > > > I already started to teach everyone the new "autocrlf=input" policy to > > avoid these questions. > > I certainly don't think "autocrlf=input" is wrong. It might even be a > reasonable default on Unix, although I don't think it's nearly as obvious > as the Windows case. I wouldn't mind using it myself, for example, > although probably only because I know that for the stuff I work on it > simply cannot possibly ever do the wrong thing. > > In fact, we had a case of bogus CRLF in one of the kernel documentation > files for some reason that we ended up fixing by hand. "autocflf=input" > would have fixed it (except in that case it wouldn't have, since it came > from the original kernel tree, long before crlf was an issue for git ;) > > So I'd say that autocrlf=input is quite possibly a good idea on Unix in > general, but my gut feel is still that it's not a big enough issue to be > actually worth making a default change over. But there's absolutely > nothing wrong with having it as a policy at a company that has mixed Unix > and Windows machines. > > (Every place I've ever been at, people who had a choice would never ever > develop under Windows, so I've never seen any real mixing - even when some > parts of the project were DOS/Windows stuff, there was a clear boundary > between the stuff that was actually done under Windows) The reality I see is the other way around as common practice. For people that has never tried a Linux box the barrier is quite high and they prefer to stick with Windows. Where I work today and in several other places I know of the default choice is to work on Windows and use a Linux box only for cross compilation. This is common practice in many smaller embedded companies and it is also these companies that like to be able to build Linux on a Windows box. Sam