Re: Re: CRLF -> LF

On 13 Jun 2004 at 12:07, Andrey Demenev wrote: > Lukas Smith wrote: > > > Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > > [..] > >>> Also, forcing devs to fix these lineendings will fuck with CVS. It'll > >>> assume all the lines have changed, which makes diff's horrible to read. > >>> Consider comparing your current/local version, to a version that's been > >>> fixed for line-endings. By default, it'd mark > >>> all lines as changed, > >>> eventhough few may be really changed. > >>> > >>> Dev-education would be the best way to go here, not forcing them upon > >>> the > >>> files at some point. > >> > >> > >> > >> Maybe auto-correcting the files on the cvs-server when commiting :-)) > >> But honestly: Yeah, see the problem. > > > > > > Autocorrecting things is a dangerous thing imho. Its likely to do more > > harm as good. Warnings is more approriate if all (similar to the API > > prefix check that was implemented into pear package). > > > [..] > > Forcing people to use correct line-endings does not solve the problem. > After CVS checkout on Windows, line-endings will be converted to CRLF, > even if checked in files used CR. After issueing pear package, the > tarball will contain files with "wrong" line-endings. I do think we need > auto-conversion (either in packager or in installer), if we care about > line-endings. Doing it in installer seems more reasonable, 'cos > otherwise problems with md5 checksums would come up. Couldn't this be done prior to checksum-calculation in the "pear package"-step? Stefan