Re: core.autocrlf, was Re: [git-for-windows] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git for Windows 2.9.3

Hi Torsten, On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, Torsten Bögershausen wrote: > > I was not talking about the cost of correcting mistakes. Running --filters > > is potentially very costly. Just so you understand what I am talking > > about: I have a report that says that checking out a sizeable worktree > > with

Re: core.autocrlf, was Re: [git-for-windows] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git for Windows 2.9.3

I was not talking about the cost of correcting mistakes. Running --filters is potentially very costly. Just so you understand what I am talking about: I have a report that says that checking out a sizeable worktree with core.autocrlf=true is 58% slower than with core.autocrlf=false. That is

Re: core.autocrlf, was Re: [git-for-windows] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git for Windows 2.9.3

Hi Junio, On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > >> In any case, in the ideal future, I would imagine that we would want > >> to have "cat-file blob" to enable "--filters" by default; that would > >> make cat-file and

Re: core.autocrlf, was Re: [git-for-windows] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git for Windows 2.9.3

Johannes Schindelin writes: >> In any case, in the ideal future, I would imagine that we would want >> to have "cat-file blob" to enable "--filters" by default; that would >> make cat-file and hash-objects a pair of symmetric operations. > > I would advocate against

core.autocrlf, was Re: [git-for-windows] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git for Windows 2.9.3

Hi Junio, On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > The feature in question is also highly unlikely to be used as much by > > non-Windows users as by Windows users due to the unfortunate choice of the > > default setting for