From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] treat any file with NUL as binary Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:16:37 -0800 Message-ID: <7vve5ubmdm.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1200407309-10992-1-git-send-email-dpotapov@gmail.com> <7vsl0yd6r8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080116011321.GD13984@dpotapov.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Steffen Prohaska To: Dmitry Potapov X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 16 02:17:27 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 1JEwuF-0006u3-Ac for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:17:27 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753584AbYAPBQ7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:16:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753420AbYAPBQ6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:16:58 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:45410 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752777AbYAPBQ6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:16:58 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D996DFA; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:16:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACE56DF8; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:16:51 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20080116011321.GD13984@dpotapov.dyndns.org> (Dmitry Potapov's message of "Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:13:21 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Dmitry Potapov writes: > Then it seems to me, Linus sounded more in favor of that change than > against it. His main argument was against 'diff' heuristic, which he > felt was not strict enough for CRLF translation: "It's *much* better > to miss some CRLF translation than to do too much of it." Yeah, you found the right one, and I agreed with the argument back then, and I agree with it now. I think NUL heuristics is a good one and obviously it makes it tighter than what diff uses, which should be what we are aiming for in this thread.