On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 11:58:57AM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 11:23:07AM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > >> What's wrong with "native" for these files?
> > > You want them to stay in Win32 format even on Unix machines, since
> > > they are only useful in that format.
> > I continue not to understand. They aren't useful on Unix machines at
> > all, except to edit, and if you're editing them want your native
> > newline format.
> Well, if you edit them in Emacs, magic happens and you don't have to
> worry. :-)
> > (If they're useless even to edit on Unix machines, then there's no
> > need to do newline translation at all, so "none" is fine.)
> The major use case I can think of here is the floppy disk (or other
> media) where it gets transferred to another computer. Come to think
> of it, distribution of sources would be another good candidate. Say I
> want to put together a tarball. In that case, those should always be
> Windows line endings.
In the Apache httpd and apr projects, we keep the .dsp and .dsw files as
text files. That allows all of our text tools to work properly on Unix
(think: commit email). It allows for editing from Unix (people add source
files). etc etc.
The default case for those files is "text", which includes translation to
the native newline mechanism.
The non-normal case is transporting the file. In that case, then the user
doing the transport needs to take particular precaution. This may be where
Branko was going: allow a checkout using a particular newline-style value.
However, I'm not very sure what the use-case is for tagging a file with a
particular style. It would seem that you just set the right newline mode and
check the file in as binary. Since the newlines are fixed as a particular
format, then why consider it text? What's the point? It's just a binary file
if you don't do newline translation.
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:28 2006