2 messages, 2 authors, 2016-06-16 · open the first message on its own page
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-16 02:19:09
Torsten Bögershausen [off-list ref] writes:
This will probably take some time, so that's why I asked if 1/10..4/10 could proceed as is ?
Sure, I wasn't saying 1-4 looked wrong at all. I was wondering why the ones in the middle, especially 7, shouldn't be moved forward together with them.
From: Torsten Bögershausen <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-16 02:19:10
On 05/03/2016 08:31 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Torsten Bögershausen [off-list ref] writes:quoted
This will probably take some time, so that's why I asked if 1/10..4/10 could proceed as is ?Sure, I wasn't saying 1-4 looked wrong at all. I was wondering why the ones in the middle, especially 7, shouldn't be moved forward together with them.
The main reason is, that 7 breaks t6038 under Windows. (And I discovered that too late :-( And as Windows is the platform being most interested in CRLF handling, I need to re-do some work.