[Avamander]

Why do we _have to_ keep bringing this legacy baggage with us for the next decades though?

Allowing CRFL-less operation intentionally, especially in new implementations. Abusing protocol tolerance is (just a bit) to switch current ones. Should allow relatively gradual progress towards Less Legacy:tm: with basically no cost.

Not every change is "breaking your back" especially if you should be updating your systems anyways to implement other, larger and more important changes.

[forrestthewoods]

Because it’s literally fine and a non-issue. Only whiny Linux babies cry about it. It’s trivial for tools to support. Trivial. Like this is easiest, least harmful baggage in the history tech debt baggage.

There will always be tech debt. Always and forever. Burn cycles on one that matters.

[Avamander]

So what's the issue with getting rid of this debt slowly? It costs basically nothing, yet makes it cleaner for those in the future. Debts matter at a larger scale and the long run.

[wongogue]

They carried the debt. Why shouldn’t everyone else?

Regarding this issue…I don’t think the author is advocating for patching standards. Just consider CR as deprecated and use it only for backward compatibility.

I do it similarly. I don’t convert line endings but any new project uses LF irrespective of the OS and configured as such in the editor.