EOL extension and patch.eol

[Mark Hammond]

On 6/12/2009 1:11 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
> * It seems reasonable to me that hg "unconditionally" ignore the EOL in
> a patch itself, except for files which are "binary". Thus, looking at
> the EOL convention of each individual file doesn't seem necessary.

Sorry, I expressed that poorly - I was trying to say that it shouldn't 
be necessary to see check how the file is *configured* (apart from 
possibly checking it isn't binary), but simply how it currently *is* - 
and even then, only how it is at the specific point being patched (ie, 
I've no expectation a patch operation will also cleanup unrelated EOL 
mixups in the file.)

Mark