On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:52:53AM +0000, Bruce Stephens wrote: > Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > > That leads me back to thinking that we still need to mark files that > > are getting changed, and that something automatic should happen to > > them, so a file will look the same checked out as before it got > > checked in. > > I'm sure we discussed all of this the last time around (and probably > the time before that; possibly I'm thinking of discussions in OpenCM > or GNU Arch). > > Storing things as binary seems easy, but that's likely to cause > irritation for projects that use Windows and Unix. > > More aggressively converting files that look texty also seems not too > hard, but it may break files that have inconsistent line-endings, and > files that are text but require a specific line ending convention. > > On the whole I think the second is a better option. Basically do what > subversion seems to do: guess when files are text, and mark them as > such; have an option that lets people specify the line-ending > conventions of a file, but by default assume the native convention.
I remain against doing any conversion based on a guess. -- hendrik > > If you want to be paranoid, I guess for files claimed to be text, > monotone could check, and only allow that if the line-endings really > are consistent. (That should prevent trashing files: the worst is > that you'd have to say what the line-ending convention really is.) > > [...] > > > > _______________________________________________ > Monotone-devel mailing list > Monotone-devel@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel