[Python-Dev] PEP 385: the eol-type issue

[Mark Hammond]

On 5/08/2009 6:00 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Mark Hammond<skippy.hammond at gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> As already mentioned in this thread, a capability similar to what svn
>> or cvs offers would be sufficient.
>
> That capability presented by centralised VCSen is entirely dependent on
> the fact that they *are* centralised. Using a distributed VCS means the
> same capability doesn't apply.

Why do you say that (without justification I might add <wink>) about 
this issue?

>> While a DVCS does offer unique challenges, it seems to me that doing
>> something at commit time without requiring magic hooks be configured
>> would go a long way to addressing the problem.
>
> The hand-waving “doing something” is exactly what needs to be solved.

I think you have been mis-reading this thread.  It is quite clear what 
'doing something' means in this context - it means implement the 
human-defined rules for the line-ending policy for the repository.

>> Magic hooks on the official repo would then be considered the final
>> fallback defense, but should rarely be invoked.
>
> Right, so that's “capability similar to centralised VCS” out of
> consideration; I'm glad we agree in the end.

I'm afraid you have lost me again, as clearly we don't agree on what 
useful things can be done at local commit time.

>> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make
>
> That I disagree with your position. You seem to think that the problem
> has an obvious solution, which is not true; and that choice of a
> distributed VCS should be delayed until the problem is solved, which I
> don't agree with.

Fair enough - but it seems clear to enough of us that we can make 
progress and meet the requirements of the people actually impacted.

>
>> but I believe it *is* possible for a solution to be found here which
>> will keep Windows users happy. I'm guessing you haven't had much
>> practical experience with this problem, so probably don't see this is
>> clearly as Windows users do.
>
> Your guess is incorrect; I've been bitten time and again by this problem
> in many different contexts, enough to know that it's not obvious what
> the “right” solution is.

Sorry about that - but that was the only way I could explain you not 
seeing how such a solution can work.

Cheers,

Mark