From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tarmigan Subject: Re: [PATCH] Respect crlf attribute even if core.autocrlf has not been set Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 11:54:34 -0700 Message-ID: <905315640808031154j28778cd6pee75e6b008304941@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080725140142.GB2925@dpotapov.dyndns.org> <42C252B2-85B9-4D05-B3A2-2A0250D7F5D6@orakel.ntnu.no> <20080729134619.GB7008@dpotapov.dyndns.org> <80518F08-A9A9-4190-9AC4-D24DD6A1188B@zib.de> <32541b130807301133w4bfc8288oa2d15911b2317dca@mail.gmail.com> <56C07978-D6C9-4219-8B92-6217BD33F6D4@zib.de> <905315640808030954j7487a010p136c73406298ee29@mail.gmail.com> <20080803173339.GQ7008@dpotapov.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Steffen Prohaska" , "Avery Pennarun" , "Eyvind Bernhardsen" , "Johannes Schindelin" , "Joshua Jensen" , "Junio C Hamano" , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Dmitry Potapov" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Aug 03 20:55:39 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 1KPijx-0004BW-77 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:55:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752719AbYHCSyg (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:54:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752861AbYHCSyg (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:54:36 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.188]:21299 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752851AbYHCSyf (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:54:35 -0400 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d3so622583nfc.21 for ; Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:54:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=q/019+ZJbMwn1ACMB0Uj7/1TKNCxqSI0Av3k0lXkSvA=; b=abi3dmRyGKG73DQvL0gA42LH6ZVl7QQltdrsxjZrqa9S7ThbjSTuUKRKJZPQdy+wuq pu/a0PO0DGl1ESzR7mqvRvdh/fdjvoEGrlmYWRkK5RHKKPMbFgc6e5KG+V6TiAOrXPR4 wl3Nt7m1+bWzlh168jvb2hk9iIemj8suXTzLI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=GkH+qP2gjm44i47Fzx0OXjm8DJ+VdSyTCsYkFjmxCvxLUA52yboPLvqyi1CBt5XMw2 qMeMVyUWK4IlyaJfpFsjYBVwGOorwh4spr3eaK7K5y0mXf5Zac9aZp28iIeflKNUVYGr m0pgMpEp+IEzKt9j8cwoF1H+KydcExH3Xe/Yo= Received: by 10.210.143.11 with SMTP id q11mr15989390ebd.61.1217789674142; Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:54:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.109.18 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Aug 2008 11:54:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080803173339.GQ7008@dpotapov.dyndns.org> Content-Disposition: inline X-Google-Sender-Auth: a1bcf9a7d747eedb Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Dmitry Potapov wrote: > On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 09:54:42AM -0700, Tarmigan wrote: >> >> For all I care, git can consider the files as binary, but by *default* >> I should get back the same as I put in. > > Sorry, but Git is a source control system, I think this is the heart of the disagreement. What I love about git is that git trusts me, the user, and it trusts my files. It doesn't change the encoding of my filenames by default. It doesn't do keyword expansion by default. It doesn't change the case of filenames by default. If git is not willing to change the encoding/case of file*names* by default, how is it acceptable to change the *content* of the files themselves? Yes, some systems that define themselves as "source control management" systems make these changes for you. But that sometimes leads to frustrating and hard to understand (to the user) behavior. Git has a very simple and transparent mental model, which is one of it's greatest strengths. In my humble opinion, autocrlf breaks this simple "content tracker" model. Breaking this mental model bothers me much more than the practical issues involved with autocrlf, so I'm just going to drop that line of argument. Thanks, Tarmigan