[RFC] eol values: unix/windows or LF/CRLF?

[Matt Doran]

Oops ... Copying to list

On 28/03/2009, at 7:46 PM, Matt Doran <matt.doran at papercut.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 28/03/2009, at 7:21 PM, Ian Clatworthy <ian.clatworthy at internode.on.net 
> > wrote:
>
>> I want to land EOL conversion into bzr.dev and I have
>> the code ready to go. I'm currently supporting values
>> named "unix" and "windows", i.e. what conventions to
>> follow when checking in text files.
>>
>> Alexander has suggested renaming them to LF and CRLF
>> respectively. Do people have strong opinions? I suspect
>> the latter is more likely to match a google search, i.e.
>> searching for "bzr crlf" will likely find the EOL
>> help nearer than top than "bzr windows newlines" will say.
>> My only concern is that unix/windows is likely to mean more
>> to non-programmers using bzr, e.g. technical writers?
>>
>
> Hi
>
> I'm not a bzr dev, but I'm in the process of learning it.  My 2c is  
> to go with CRLF, LF, etc.
>
> I'm a heavy svn user and this is the terminology they use.  And they  
> use "native" for the platform default ... which is a very nice  
> feature, but I'm not sure whether you're gonna support this.
>
> It's probably good to go with a convention used by other tools.
>
> -- matt