Re: "checksum failure after patch" in CVS

[Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>]

On 7/5/05, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> You are, in effect, saying that Emacs is wrong decoding non-Unix EOLs
> and treating the result as text by hiding the alien EOL sequences from
> the user when it displays the file.  Because if config.bat is a binary
> file, we should have visited it with no-conversion.

No. I'm specifically speaking of CVS. Nothing that I did say bears any
relation with Emacs. I'm talking about what CVS and CVS clients *do*
and *expect* from text and/or binary files.

And, as I said, it is a terminology issue. I'm not questioning that
you and Jason are right. That does not keep me from shooting my foot
every now and then because of the CR/LF "text" files in the
repository.

> It's not evil because storing it as a binary loses some valuable
> features of CVS, like the ability to say "cvs diff", "cvs annotate",
> etc.

That's why I'd like for them to be text with LF. I'm not advocating
having CR/LF files in binary. Heck, I'm not "advocating" anything.
I've already understood why some people has decided to have CR/LF
.BATs in the repository as text files. That I understand what has been
done doesn't preclude me of thinking of it as evil (the fact, not the
people, of course).

> What _is_ evil is the broken manner in which Windows CVS clients
> handle the EOL issue.

That, too. But CVSNT is *the* CVS client for Windows, it is widely
deployed. Even if they fixed that, there'd be still a lot of people
running older copies. So we have something in the repository which is
likely to cause problems to Windows developers and users (at least
those who're going to compile their own Emacs).

> No, config.bat was always stored with DOS EOLs in the Emacs CVS.

Funny, then. It's been changed at other times and I never had the problem.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u