On 2/23/11 8:03 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> Uh, no. Use of "svn:eol-style" avoids a world of hurt - programmers do not
>> have to run a script *every* time they check out a file. Requiring users to
>> run a script to fix line endings in every sandbox is a recipe for disaster.
>> "dos2unix" and "unix2dos" are precisely the kind of local rewriting you want
>> to avoid.
>> My two cents (and one million lines of code) worth...
> Not when the same working working copy is accessible from both Linux
> or UNIX, and Windows, as is commonplace in a mixed platform
There are lots of ways to cause trouble. My opinion is that if it hurts, don't
do it. And that will hurt.
> If your working copies on each platform are distinct, you
> should be able to get away with it. But hit the same checked out
> Windows repository with TortoiseSVN and CygWin, and suddenly you're in
> a world of hurt again with the non-binary handling of EOL. Some text
> editors will autoparse it for you, but it can get extremely nasty, and
> I've had to clean up some serious messes this way.
More things that hurt - and to avoid. But setting eol-style native and using
normal, native tools on each OS isn't one of them.
> The messes are aggravated by the lack of the "obliterate" function, to
> entirely strip out erroneously configured file additions, and the
> difficulty running "diff" operations against files that have been
> stored and had their EOL settings updated and their contents revised.
> It really messes with "svn diff" operations before and after the
Any time you use dos2unix or the like it is going to be a change in every line
and will screw up any concept of version differences. If svn does it
internally, you don't have that problem.
Received on 2011-02-24 03:27:55 CET