Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
> This is the correct thing to do, really: we already specify LF as
> field separator.
I'm almost convinced that this is the right thing to do in the long run
("almost" because I'm not sure, not because I have arguments against). I
agree with Junio that the commit message should be more convincing, but
indeed, accepting LF and not CR is strange.
However, is this the right thing to do in the maintainance branch? It
does fix the issue, but does so in a rather intrusive way, so I'd need
more arguments to be convinced that this is safe to merge in maint. Or
have a local fix for rebase to be merged in maint, and apply this in
master for the next feature release.
Sorry for being negative, and especially sorry since I'm partly guilty
for the breakage. I just want to be sure that we don't break anything
while repairing it (we already introduced this breakage while repairing
another one...).
> # Similarly for IFS, but some shells (e.g. FreeBSD 7.2) are buggy and
> # do not equate an unset IFS with IFS with the default, so here is
> -# an explicit SP HT LF.
> +# an explicit SP HT LF CR.
> IFS='
> -'
> +'"$(printf '\r')"
While we're there, it may be better to have a single "printf ' \t\n\r'"
to avoid the whitespace magic in the source code.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
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
