svn:eol-style property

[Kevin Ballard]

On Jan 25, 2007, at 3:26 AM, Randall Wood wrote:

>> I disagree.  Take it off of the */*/patch* and the 200 other  
>> patches, which I guess are poorly named then since they don't  
>> start with the word patch, and leave everything else alone.
>
> I have seen no standard that states how patch files are to be named  
> - I use *.patch to name my patch files and think that is a better  
> way to name the file. Try globbing for */*/*patch* instead.

I created a find pattern to find all the patches earlier, but with a  
bit of experimentation here's a bash glob pattern that works:

*/*/files/{patch{_,-}*,*.diff,*{-,.}patch,patch{es,}}

This finds 2396 (out of 2443) files. I'll kill svn:eol-style on all  
of these, then investigate the other 47 files by hand. If they're  
scripts (or .txt files), ok, I'll keep svn:eol-style set on them. If  
they're something else, well, I'll figure it out (what else might  
there be, I wonder?)

Incidentally, for script files should I really use svn:eol-style  
native, or should I use svn:eol-style LF? The stated reason to have  
it is so someone on windows who edits it won't screw it up, but I  
assume if someone on windows edits a file and converts the line  
endings to CRLF, having it set to LF will simply fix it, no? The  
reason I'm proposing this is because I don't know for a fact that all  
scripting languages support windows line endings (at least, when  
running under a unix environment). Can anybody tell me for a fact  
that they do?

-- 
Kevin Ballard
http://kevin.sb.org
eridius at macports.org
http://www.tildesoft.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20070125/17605415/attachment.html