Re: eol style differences

Branko ÄŒibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:

> Oh, and I'd mention all those broken file formats (such as .dsp files)
> that absolutely insist on a certain style of line endings. It's way
> simpler to say svn:eol-style=CRLF than wonder if you've done the right
> thing every time you roll a tarball on a Unix machine.

Is that better than simply having the correct file in the repository
and then having it transferred unchanged into the tarball? That's how
we worked under ClearCase the last time I worked on a Unix/Windows
project. I have edited .dsp and .dsw files in vi on Unix, it's not
hard (one needs CRLF, the other doesn't as I recall).

> Observe that APR and httpd, which don't use Subversion and refuse to set
> the -kb flag on the .dsp files, have separate tarballs for Unix and
> Windows -- a situation which, to my taste, it a lot more horrible than
> trying to get svn:eol-style to work.

Huh? Isn't that an example of eol-conversion being a bad thing? If
the CVS repository files were in the correct format, and got copied
unchanged into the tarball, it would just work.

I think eol conversion is a patently ridiculous thing for a version
control system to do. However, it looks like I'll just have to live
with it.

-- 
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org