The issue is that the default install of the git client (on windows I think) tries to do something clever with newlines and then ends up claiming you have vast changes (due to the different newlines). Look through Walter's prior messages on this mailing list.
-Steve > >From: David Simcha <[email protected]> >To: Discuss the phobos library for D <[email protected]> >Cc: >Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 2:37 PM >Subject: Re: [phobos] The time has come to destroy all y'all over CR/LF > > >Forgive my ignorance, but why is this such a big issue? Shouldn't any decent >programmer tool (diff utility, editor, IDE, etc.) be able to interpret CR, LF >and CR LF as effectively meaning the same thing and do what you mean? In the >context of source code noone ever wants to go to the beginning of the current >line. The only time it can become ambiguous is when a CR LF was actually >produced by two different edits with different settings (and is therefore >supposed to mean two newlines, not one) and even then it only mildly screws up >the whitespace. > >Bottom line: I fail to see why different line endings should be such an issue >in the first place, unless we're using some overly strict or Stone Age tool >that favors absolute adherence to some specification over common sense. In >such cases it's more the tool that's the problem, not the source file. I >don't give a hoot which line ending anyone uses, because all my tools seem to >"just work" regardless, and I have absolutely no clue what line ending my IDE >is set up to use because I don't understand why it really matters in practice. > > >On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Walter Bright <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >>>>Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> >> >>>>>>So CR alone should be available as "go to the beginning of the current >>>>>>line". LF alone should mean "go to the beginning of the next line". And >>>>>>that should be it. Unix got this right. CP/M et al got this wrong. >>> >>> >> >>CP/M did not invent that meaning for LF. LF goes back decades earlier than >>CP/M. >> >>>>In the early 80's, unix wasn't seen much. The best systems were the DEC >>>>computers, and a lot of software professionals expected DEC to become the >>>>dominant player. DEC operating systems were widely seen as the best. (IBM >>>>was still mired in their ridiculous EBCDIC encoding.) >> >>>>I suspect that unix and its conventions would be dead by now if not for >>>>Linux. >> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>phobos mailing list >>[email protected] >>>>http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos >> > > >
_______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
