Oh Most Noble and Fragrant Emacs, please be in -*- outline -*- mode!

             Newline Conversion and Keyword Substitution
             ===========================================

* Newline conversion

We've finally settled on a proposal articulated by Greg Hudson,
derived from Ben's original proposal plus much list discussion.

Here's Greg's mail with the proposal, then a few clarifying selections
from the followup discussion:

   Alright, I'll make a proposal which is like yours but (in my
   opinion) a little clearer.  First, let's look at the different use
   cases:

   1. The most common case--text files which want native line endings.
      These should be stored in the repository using LF line endings,
      and in the working dir using native line endings.

   2. Binary files.  These files we don't want to touch at all.

   3. Text files which, for one reason or another, want a specific
      line ending format regardless of platform.  These should be
      stored in the repository and in the working directory using the
      specified line ending.  We probably don't have to worry so much
      about data safety for these files since a particular, odd
      behavior has been specified for them.

   There are, of course, a hundred different ways we could arrange the
   metadata.  I propose an "svn:newline-style" property with the
   possible values "none", "native", "LF", "CR", and "CRLF".  The
   values mean:

   none: Use case 2.  don't do any newline translation

   native: Use case 1.  Store with LF in repository, and with native
   line endings in the working copy.

   LF, CR, CRLF: Use case 3.  Store with specified format in the
   repository and in the working copy.

   On commit, we apply the following rules to transform the data
   committed to the server:

   If newline-style is none, do nothing.

   If newline-stle is native, translate <native newline style> -> LF.
   If we notice any CRs or LFs which aren't part of a native-style
   newline, abort the commit.

   If newline-style is LF, CR, or CRLF, translate <native newline
   style> -> <requested newline style>.  If we notice any CRs or LFs
   which aren't part of a native-style newline and aren't part of a
   requested-style newline, abort the commit.  If the commit succeeds,
   apply the <native newline style> -> <requested newline style>
   translation to the working copy as well, so that it matches what we
   would get from a checkout of the new rev.

   On checkout, we translate LF -> <native newline style> if
   newline-style is native; otherwise, we leave the file alone.

   For now, let's say the default value of svn:newline-style is none.
   In the future, we'll want to think about things like how to enable
   newline-translation over the whole repository except for files
   which don't appear to be text.

   I think that's a complete proposal.  Some possible variations:

   Variation 1: If newline-style is native, on commit, translate
   <first newline style seen> -> LF.  If we see any CRs or LFs which
   don't match the first newline style seen, abort the commit.

   Variation 2: If newline-style is native, before commit, examine the
   file to see if it uses only the native newline style.  If it
   doesn't, set the newline-style property to "none" and commit with
   no translation.

   Variation 3: Combine variations 1 and 2; if newline-style is
   native, then if before commit, examine the file to see if it uses a
   single consistent newline style.  If it does, translate <that
   newline style> -> LF; if not, commit with newline-style set to
   "none" and no translation.

   Variation 4: If newline-style is native, then on commit, we edit a
   property "svn:newline-conversion" to something like "CRLF LF" to
   show what conversion we did.  This enables mechanical reversal of
   the translation if the file is later determined to be binary.
   (Particularly useful with variations 1 or 3 where the transform
   might not be obvious from the platform where the file was checked
   in.)

We decided to hold off on doing any of the "variations".  We'll just
do the basic proposal first, then see how well things work out.

Next, Greg responded to an observation by William Uther, in which
William pointed out that the behavior is not reversible when
svn:newline-style is LF or CRLF.  Greg agrees, but explains why that's
okay:

   On Fri, 2001-12-14 at 15:48, William Uther wrote:
   > --On Friday, 14 December 2001 1:16 PM -0500 Greg Hudson
   > <ghudson@MIT.EDU> wrote:

   > >   If newline-style is LF, CR, or CRLF, translate <native
   > > newline style> -> <requested newline style>.  If we notice any
   > > CRs or LFs which aren't part of a native-style newline and
   > > aren't part of a requested-style newline, abort the commit.  If
   > > the commit succeeds, apply the <native newline style> ->
   > > <requested newline style> translation to the working copy as
   > > well, so that it matches what we would get from a checkout of
   > > the new rev.
   >
   > I don't think this preserves reversability.  If a file contains
   > BOTH <native-style newline> and <requested-style newline> then
   > you neet to abort.  If you translate just <native-style newline>
   > then you can't undo the transformation - you don't know which
   > newlines need to be untransformed.

   This particular transform (for files marked CRLF, CR, or LF) is not
   reversible.  See where I said:

   "We probably don't have to worry so much about data safety for
    these files since a particular, odd behavior has been specified
    for them."

   However, let's add a possible variation to my proposal, for those
   who are still uncomfortable with data-destroying transformations
   applied to such flies:

   Variation 5: If the file is marked CRLF, CR, or LF, we translate
   <native-style newline> to <requested-style newline> during commit,
   and abort the commit if we notice any kind of mixing of newline
   styles.  (Can also combine with variation 1.)

Colin Putney also followed up to William Uther's post, agreeing with
Greg and explaining why in even more detail:

   > I don't think this preserves reversability.  If a file contains
   > BOTH <native-style newline> and <requested-style newline> then
   > you neet to abort.  If you translate just <native-style newline>
   > then you can't undo the transformation - you don't know which
   > newlines need to be untransformed.

   > Stated simply: You should only translate when the newline style
   > is entirely consistent.  Anything else removes the inconsistency
   > and hence loses information.

   True, this scheme doesn't preserve reversibility. But in this case
   that's OK, because the newline-style decrees what the newline style
   must be. If there are native-style newlines mixed in with the
   requested-style newlines, this is probably the result of corruption
   by some native-newline-obsessive user tool. So the non-reversible
   transform will actually undo the corruption.

   For example, the file foo.dsp, which has newline-style of
   CRLF. It's stored in the repository with CRLF newlines and on
   checkout, no transformation is done. If Linus checks out the file
   and edits it in an old version of emacs, any lines he adds will be
   terminated with a bare LF. Since this is his native style of
   newline, the transformation Greg described will undo this damage.

   If the newline-style is set to a specific newline-style (ie. CR,
   LF, or CRLF), then we know that (1) the file is text, not binary,
   and (2), any other style of newline present is corruption.

   A file should not be marked with a specific newline style unless
   (1) user does so explicitly, or (2) it matches some heuristic when
   it's added, *and* the file contents conform to that newline style.

   So the only real possibility for corruption is if some user tool
   creates a binary file that matches a heuristic for a specific
   newline style. In our running example, William creates a vector
   graphics file called foo.dsp and adds it. By chance, this file
   happens to have CRLFs scattered though it, but no bare CRs, LFs,
   '\0' characters or other harbingers of binary files. On the commit,
   svn will notice the extension, set the newline-style to CRLF and
   send it to the repository. William may get an error if he tries to
   commit a change that introduces a bare CR or LF, but he won't
   corrupt the file.

   Linus can corrupt the file if he makes a change that introduces a
   bare LF, which will get transformed into CRLF on
   commit. Alternatively, Madeleine (was that her name?) Can introduce
   a bare CR and commit, which will also corrupt the file.

   That's a pretty long string of unlikely coincidences though, while
   the opposite case, where this transformation *fixes* corruption, is
   quite common.

   Colin

Finally, Greg followed up, confirming again what he meant by that
portion of the proposal, but also saying that he could go the other
way on the question too:

   > +1 on Greg Hudson's latest proposal -- and I think we're now
   > ready to Actually Do It. :-)

   I hope so.  For a while I was afraid we had hit our first failure
   to achieve livable consensus.  My apologies for not realizing the
   reversability thing until two days and several thousand lines of
   misguided debate had already gone by.

   > My assumption is that "in the working copy" means both text-base
   > and working file, for the sake of an efficient is-modified-p
   > test, and since the repository file is just an automatic
   > transform off the text-base anyway.

   Actually, I was assuming that text-base would be a verbatim copy of
   the repository contents.  But that's kind of an implementation
   detail; let's leave that up to Ben (assuming he's doing the
   implementation).

   > Otherwise, then the is-modified-p check has to be tweaked in a
   > way that will make modifiedness checks a lot slower in some
   > cases.

   No... it just means that if the mod times force a contents check,
   you have to translate the text-base contents as you compare them
   against the normal contents.  That's "a teeny tiny bit slower,"
   not, "a lot slower."

   > The second sentence of the above paragraph isn't about allowing
   > mixed-style files.  It's saying that if the entire file is native
   > format, allow that (and transform when necessary), OR if the
   > entire file is in the requested style, then allow that too.  The
   > latter situation could happen if someone used a LF-style tool
   > under Windows, for example, so that when an LF-style file got
   > saved, the whole thing would be LF-style now, not native style.
   > No reason to disallow this.
   >
   > Right?

   See my last message, as well as Colin Putney's argument.  In
   summary, that's not actually what I meant, but I don't really care
   either way.

We're implementing Greg's original meaning, since (as Colin Putney
pointed out) the chance of "bad" data corruption is very small, and
the chance that it would undo corruption is actually greater.


* Keyword substitution

Quick summary: there's one property, named "svn:keywords".  It's value
is a whitespace-separated list of keywords to expand.  Since keywords
have both long and short forms, both ways are allowed in the value of
the svn:keywords property.  Here are all the keywords:

   "LastChangedBy"       "Author"         ---> either one expands author
   "LastChangedDate"     "Date"           ---> either one expands date
   "LastChangedRevision" "Revision" "Rev" ---> any one expands rev
   "HeadURL"             "URL"            ---> either one expands url

Here are some example values of the property:

   "Rev LastChangedDate HeadURL"

   "Author\nDate  \n  LastChangedRevision       URL"

Unrecognized words are ignored; absence of the property is the same as
an empty value or a value with no valid keywords in it.

Keywords (long and short forms) are case-sensitive, as in CVS.