Torsten Bögershausen <tbo...@web.de> writes: > Although the intention of 4d4813a5 is good, it breaks > the usual EOL-handling for Windows. > Until we have a better solution, we suggest to revert it.
That makes it sound like you are proposing to rob Peter to pay Paul, but that is not how we do things around here. If both the case 4d4813a5 tried to solve and the issue reported by Stepan need to be satisfied, the current code will stay as-is until you can find a good solution to make both happy. Having said that. I suspect (I haven't looked very carefully for this round yet to be sure, though) that it may turn out that the commit you are proposing to revert was a misguided attempt to "fix" a non issue, or to break the behaviour to match a mistaken expectation. If that is the case then definitely the reversion is a good idea, and you should argue along that line of justification. We'd just be fixing an old misguided and bad change in such a case. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
