Re: Fixing blame's eol sensitivity (plans for the last round)
From: Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2005-12-07 19:53:58 CET
On 12/7/05, Peter N. Lundblad <peter@famlundblad.se> wrote:
Exactly. And because of it, we want to be able to tell the difference
> And if we did, why wouldn't we want the EOL markers in
> Why is that ugly? Isn't the eol marker part of the line?
I see I'm making not much sense. I'll give the current and desired
Let's take line 500 from a file foo.txt which has line ending style
"Hi! I'm line 500 in foo.txt.\n"
Now, on Windows, in a working copy, this line looks like this:
"Hi! I'm line 500 in foo.txt.\r\n"
Currently, the trailing \n gets eaten, but not the trailing \r. This
"Hi! I'm line 500 in foo.txt.\r"
When writing this to the 'normal' blame output, this line gets a \n
"Hi! I'm line 500 in foo.txt.\r\n"
But that seems wrong. If a client doesn't want to output the newline,
"Hi! I'm line 500 in foo.txt."
instead of the current
"Hi! I'm line 500 in foo.txt.\r"
So, what I'm saying is that it should be possible to tell blame either to send
"Hi! I'm line 500 in foo.txt."
(no newline, as it does now for \n style eols), or
"Hi! I'm line 500 in foo.txt.\r\n"
which it currently never does.
What I was proposing is that we create a blame callback which takes an
BTW: I just saw there's absolutely *no* output included in the blame
I hope this is more clear?
bye,
Erik.
PS: If it's not, never mind, just propose a good way to resolve the
|
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.
This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.