Thus said Jan Nijtmans on Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:20:28 +0100: > That said, I would prefer too the default being NOT to ignore > whitespace, that's what most other SCM's do. Except for annotations, > then it is useful to ignore all whitespacing.
Why is it useful to ignore all whitespace for annotate/blame? Am the only one who I wants to know who's introducing spurious space changes? :-) If I look at the annotate for: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/annotate?checkin=3df526ca41bde756&filename=src/checkout.c&log=1&limit=-1 The number 1 checkin listed is: 2014-02-28 check-in 3df526ca41 artifact a584a28bf3 But I cannot find any lines that show 3df526ca41. If I look at line 162, it is annotated with: d13054ce84 2010-10-26 162: This seems confusing to me. Previously Fossil would show: 3df526ca41 2014-02-28 162: Which in my opinion is the more correct behavior. > Something like: > <http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/28b39cc516> > > Is that getting nearer to what's really desired? Yes, this actually looks quite nice! I also like the addition of the ``ignore whitespace'' button. I wasn't certain if this should be a preference stored in the DB or a button---I think the button is more convenient. Thanks, Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 400000005315eefb _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
