Re: What's cooking extra

From: Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at>
Date: May 22, 2010, 13:09 UTC
Message-ID: <20100522130916.GA28452@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20100519170656.GA30161@pvv.org>

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 07:06:56PM +0200, Finn Arne Gangstad wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 07:33:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> >  * (Eyvind Bernhardsen and Linus) Fixing the behaviour of crlf attribute;
> >    ignoring them when core.autocrlf is not in effect was a wrong design
> >    decision.
> > 
> >    I agree with what Linus said in the thread; I haven't yet looked at the
> >    discussion in the past few days.  Also I don't know where '[PATCH v2]
> >    Add "core.eol" config variable' fits in the picture.
> 
> I think this one is pretty much discussed by now, with the latest
> changes this should do pretty much what Linus wanted.

That is not the impression I got. Linus was objecting to the idea of new attribute and configuration variables, which essentially do the same thing but with slightly different semantics.

As soon as the existing crlf attribute is given priority over core.autocrlf, all the problems discussed originally go away. So what exactly are the new attributes supposed to do?

Also, could you post a truth table for all the parameters involved (eol, crlf, core.autocrlf, core.eol). The documentation in the patches is too confusing for me to understand even that.

And, renaming the crlf attribute to text? Where did Linus suggest that? If we do that, we don't even have to talk about backwards compatibility any more.

Clemens