Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] blame: CRLF in the working tree and LF in the repo

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:31:11 -0700

Torsten Bögershausen <[email-masked]> writes:

> Although the intention of 4d4813a5 is good, it breaks
> the usual EOL-handling for Windows.
> Until we have a better solution, we suggest to revert it.

That makes it sound like you are proposing to rob Peter to pay Paul,
but that is not how we do things around here.  If both the case
4d4813a5 tried to solve and the issue reported by Stepan need to be
satisfied, the current code will stay as-is until you can find a
good solution to make both happy.

Having said that.

I suspect (I haven't looked very carefully for this round yet to be
sure, though) that it may turn out that the commit you are proposing
to revert was a misguided attempt to "fix" a non issue, or to break
the behaviour to match a mistaken expectation.  If that is the case
then definitely the reversion is a good idea, and you should argue
along that line of justification.

We'd just be fixing an old misguided and bad change in such a case.

Thanks.