The issue is that the default install of the git client (on windows I think) tries to do something clever with newlines and then ends up claiming you have vast changes (due to the different newlines).  Look through Walter's prior messages on this mailing list.

-Steve


>
>From: David Simcha <dsimcha at gmail.com>
>To: Discuss the phobos library for D <phobos at puremagic.com>
>Cc:
>Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 2:37 PM
>Subject: Re: [phobos] The time has come to destroy all y'all over CR/LF
>
>
>Forgive my ignorance, but why is this such a big issue?  Shouldn't any decent programmer tool (diff utility, editor, IDE, etc.) be able to interpret CR, LF and CR LF as effectively meaning the same thing and do what you mean?  In the context of source code noone ever wants to go to the beginning of the current line.  The only time it can become ambiguous is when a CR LF was actually produced by two different edits with different settings (and is therefore supposed to mean two newlines, not one) and even then it only mildly screws up the whitespace.
>
>Bottom line: I fail to see why different line endings should be such an issue in the first place, unless we're using some overly strict or Stone Age tool that favors absolute adherence to some specification over common sense.  In such cases it's more the tool that's the problem, not the source file.  I don't give a hoot which line ending anyone uses, because all my tools seem to "just work" regardless, and I have absolutely no clue what line ending my IDE is set up to use because I don't understand why it really matters in practice.
>
>
>On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Walter Bright <walter at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>>Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>So CR alone should be available as "go to the beginning of the current line". LF alone should mean "go to the beginning of the next line". And that should be it. Unix got this right. CP/M et al got this wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>CP/M did not invent that meaning for LF. LF goes back decades earlier than CP/M.
>>
>>>>In the early 80's, unix wasn't seen much. The best systems were the DEC computers, and a lot of software professionals expected DEC to become the dominant player. DEC operating systems were widely seen as the best. (IBM was still mired in their ridiculous EBCDIC encoding.)
>>
>>>>I suspect that unix and its conventions would be dead by now if not for Linux.
>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>phobos mailing list
>>phobos at puremagic.com
>>>>http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/attachments/20110126/c41227b7/attachment.html>