On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:46:51 +0100 "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote: > > Actually, it isn't *required* on each developer's setup, since we > > now have a hook that refuses bogus changegroups (if needed, we can even > > refuse individual changesets). In most situations, even without the > > eol extension line endings won't get modified anyway. > > I think this is overly optimistic. Visual Studio will break all your > files if you don't use that extension (and you actually use it to > modify source code). My assumption was that most developers don't use MSVC, so most of them don't risk breaking eols ;) True, for Windows devs it might be necessary to promote it. Regards Antoine.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4