From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] blame: CRLF in the working tree and LF in the repo Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:19:27 +0200 Message-ID: <553FEB4F.7050409@kdbg.org> References: <553CD3DA.9090700@web.de> <20150427061115.GB2766@camelia.ucw.cz> <553E86BD.7030401@kdbg.org> <553E91CD.9060205@web.de> <553FD48B.1010608@kdbg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Torsten_B=F6gershausen?= , Stepan Kasal , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin , sandals@crustytoothpaste.net To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 28 22:19:38 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YnByi-0005Wj-SF for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:19:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965926AbbD1UTc (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:19:32 -0400 Received: from bsmtp7.bon.at ([213.33.87.19]:56500 "EHLO bsmtp.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965258AbbD1UTb (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:19:31 -0400 Received: from dx.site (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3lbvTD20Phz5tl9; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:19:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.site (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65475240; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:19:27 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 28.04.2015 um 21:52 schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Johannes Sixt writes: > >> I set none of these. But I do commit CRLF and expect to get CRLF >> back. Am I commiting binary files? Am I doing something that "Git does >> not support"? Am I "on [my] own"? > > I think these specific sentences are merely uninformed opinions; if > I ignore and re-read what people said in the discussion, I think the > thread as a whole makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Following the thread only superficially, I feared some behavior change (or even just a redefinition of what "is supported") is about to surface that impacts established workflows. -- Hannes