Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add keyword unexpansion support to convert.c

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Andy Parkins wrote:

If you define "work" as "works like cvs/svn does", then I was fine with 
it.

I can't really argue against that. Yes, I agree 100% that we can "work" in 
the sense that "cvs/svn works". There's clearly no fundamental reasons why 
you can't, since svn/cvs obviously do it.

I just do have higher standards. I really dislike CVS, and in many ways I 
actually think that SVN is even worse (not because it's really "worse", 
but because I think it is such a waste - it fixes the _trivial_ things 
about CVS, but doesn't really fix any of the underlying problems).

So I don't actually think that CVS "works". 

Bit-for-bit as in CRLF is untouched?  No?  Bit-for-bit as in you said 
you were okay with keyword-collapsing but not expansion?  You're just 
as willing to compromise as me, you've just drawn the line in a 
different place.

Bit-for-bit as in "you have to be able to trust every single bit".

And no, I don't actually love CRLF either. But it doesn't have quite the 
same fundamental problems. It has issues too, but they are fundamentally 
smaller, and I think making "git compatible with Windows" is also a lot 
more important than making "git compatible with CVS users".

Windows we cannot change. CVS users we can try to help. 

		Linus