> Lots of people on Windows use programs like Notepad for "serious" work.
This is not an argument for me. Using broken tools is not an excuse. There are many excellent text editors for Windows (in fact, I haven't been able to find an editor seriously competing with EmEditor in either Linux or Mac world when handling very large files). EmEditor is commercial, but there are lots of excellent open source alternatives (JEdit, notepad++). If you're using notepad for development you can't be seriously a Windows user... you wouldn't get any work done at all. > If the source control system didn't convert line endings, we would have > many complaints from Windows users who double-click on files like > CHANGES.txt and can't easily read it because the formatting's all > screwed up, and from people who want to use the text editor built into > their OS for editing source code. I disagree. You need to know and respect your audience, but you also have the right to say what you expect. Source code-level access is for developers. If they're able to check out the source code using git and compile it then we must be able to assume they have enough technical knowledge to figure out opening a text file with notepad is a bad idea. Otherwise, by similar argument, we should distribute two binary releases -- one for \n systems and the other for \r\n just so that people can read the txt files with installation instructions. This isn't sane. I don't know why git even has this "facility" of converting line endings, this is just asking for trouble. Marking a perfectly valid text file as binary is a bad idea (for example, changes to binary files are not listed in diffs). Dawid --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
