Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla changes --diffs question

[Adrian Irving-Beer]

On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 11:04:33AM +0200, address@hidden wrote:

. . .
> because it allows tla 1.2 write in 1.2.1 repositories even though in
> 1.2.1 files are no longer all considered binary and CR LF is
>     modified on commit to LF.
. . .
> Another small problem that I noticed is that tla 1.2 can't access
> 1.2.1 archives completely,

I think there's a misunderstanding here.  I've been scratching my head
reading this thread because I seemed to be getting mixed messages.

Mail from John:

| There is a bug in some of the latest tla-cygwin distributions where
| some of the files get opened in binary mode, and others get opened
| in text mode. So that when it looks at changes, the "original" file
| looks like just LF, while the modified file has CR+LF.

What I'm pretty sure he means here is *not* that 'the latest tla-
cygwin distribution' (see below) has changed its *classification* of
binary files, but that it's accidentally (due to a bug) not always
opening *all* files in 'binary' mode.  In Cygwin, text mode can
involve converting LFs to CRLFs for use by Windows.

| Be careful, as committing with this binary can lead to corrupted
| archives.

This (ouch!) . . .

| I personally have 2 workarounds. First, I reverted to a slightly
| older version of the binaries which seems to not have the problem.
| (I believe this is the 1.2 versus the 1.2.1. If you still had
| problems, I could post a tarball somewhere of what I use.)

. . . and this seem to say to me, "just don't use 1.2.1 on Cygwin".

You can see why I was a little concerned and confused when you said
"for the moment I will stick to 1.2.1"! ;)

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature