From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add keyword unexpansion support to convert.c Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:10:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <200704171041.46176.andyparkins@gmail.com> <200704172012.31280.andyparkins@gmail.com> <200704172146.33665.andyparkins@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Andy Parkins X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 17 23:11:13 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HduxC-0004Jl-4B for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:11:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031239AbXDQVLF (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:11:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031243AbXDQVLF (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:11:05 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:36640 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031239AbXDQVLE (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:11:04 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id l3HLAtC0017964 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:10:56 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id l3HLAspX008043; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:10:55 -0700 In-Reply-To: <200704172146.33665.andyparkins@gmail.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.964 required=5 tests=AWL,OSDL_HEADER_SUBJECT_BRACKETED X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.119__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.177 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Andy Parkins wrote: > > If you define "work" as "works like cvs/svn does", then I was fine with > it. I can't really argue against that. Yes, I agree 100% that we can "work" in the sense that "cvs/svn works". There's clearly no fundamental reasons why you can't, since svn/cvs obviously do it. I just do have higher standards. I really dislike CVS, and in many ways I actually think that SVN is even worse (not because it's really "worse", but because I think it is such a waste - it fixes the _trivial_ things about CVS, but doesn't really fix any of the underlying problems). So I don't actually think that CVS "works". > Bit-for-bit as in CRLF is untouched? No? Bit-for-bit as in you said > you were okay with keyword-collapsing but not expansion? You're just > as willing to compromise as me, you've just drawn the line in a > different place. Bit-for-bit as in "you have to be able to trust every single bit". And no, I don't actually love CRLF either. But it doesn't have quite the same fundamental problems. It has issues too, but they are fundamentally smaller, and I think making "git compatible with Windows" is also a lot more important than making "git compatible with CVS users". Windows we cannot change. CVS users we can try to help. Linus