[cvsnt] --lf obsolete?

[Yongwei Wu]

On 9/4/06, Flávio Etrusco <flavio.etrusco at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yongwei Wu wrote:
>
> May I intromit again? ;-)

Of course :-). Thanks for mentioning the need of `-f' in commit to
make k+L persistent.

> First I'd like to assure I understand your problem correctly. It's
> that 'update -lf' was sticky but 'update -k+L' isn't (as any 'update
> -k' option), right?

Quite the contrary. --lf is not sticky, and you need to specify it
each time on the command line. -k+L is either too unsticky (lost after
a commit), or too sticky (make itself to the server and affect other
users).

The other major difference is that --lf is a pure client-side option:
it does not affect the repository (well, unless you are doing foolish
things). -kL is an expansion mode and can propagate to the server. And
it does not work with a CVS server.

> 1) Isn't 'checkout -k+L' supposed to maintain "stickiness"?

I would love the possibility to keep my local files always in LF line endings.

> 2) Is everyone else in your projects working differently than you?

Well, for CVS repositories, -kL has not effect, and it is all my
personal needs to keep the files in UNIX line endings. For CVSNT
repositories, I really do not use --lf in real worlds. (It happens to
be the case that the source trees I want UNIX line endings are all
based on CVS instead of CVSNT.)

> 3) I've just checked that svn doesn't seem to offer any kind of
> feature like this ;-)

Maybe (I do not use SVN currently). But SVN has Cygwin ports, I believe.

> 4) It's not part of the UNIX philosophy to provide options that allow
> one to easily shoot oneself in the foot ;-)

Um, I tend to disagree (and it is easy to shoot oneself under UNIX:
someone even calls it an indispensable educational experience). UNIX
tools tend to be powerful and allow you to do anything, and will not
drop an option just because it *can* be dangerous, because the basic
assumption is that the user is smart and know what he/she is doing.
And I do not think UNIX tools ever drop options without providing a
better alternative. In the current case, there are no alternative
options at all if the server is CVS.


The most important reason I want CVSNT (instead of CVS) is because it
provides a better CVS server on Windows. UTF-16 file support,
finer-grid ACL, better merging support, better binary data handling,
and rename support are also nice to have. Just for the record.

Best regards,

Yongwei

-- 
Wu Yongwei
URL: http://wyw.dcweb.cn/