Re: [PATCH] added: Multi line support for ignore-paths configuration

From: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
Date: Mar 29, 2020, 23:24 UTC
Message-ID: <20200329232404.GA12701@dcvr>
In-Reply-To: <0515a11b-d9ae-3f22-65a8-5efee235d5c9@lpl-mind.de>

Lukas Pupka-Lipinski <lukas.pupkalipinski@lpl-mind.de> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Hi Eric,
> 
> thanks for your feedback.
> 
> I will include your general Feedback in the next Patch mail.
> 
> In Addition i think its not clear what i was trying to solve. I use the git
> svn extension for our company SVN. Unfortunately we have a lot of stuff in
> the SVN what I do not use and don’t want to checkout. So I started to use
> the ignore-paths option. But git only allows to have ca. 150 char in one
> config line. Which is not enough for me. So I started to extend the code to
> use also the next line. So that your expression can be bigger than 150 char,
> spread over several lines.

Thanks for the explanation.  In the future, please keep
git@vger.kernel.org and anybody else in the discussion in the
Cc: list (use reply-to-all in your mailer).

> I hope that make it clear.

OK, please do, thank you :)

Show 17 quoted lines

> I will resend the second mail in few seconds
> 
> > That looks like it would munge the following:
> > 
> > 	[svn-remote "foo"]
> > 		ignore-paths = a
> > 		ignore-paths = b
> > 
> > into "a\nb\n"
> > 
> > And finally into a regexp:/ab/
> > 
> > ...Which doesn't seem correct, to me.
> 
> No this will end up into "ab" the \n and \r are removed at
> 
> +    $v  =~ s/[\x0A\x0D]//g if (defined $v);

Right, so do you agree your patch is broken in that case and needs fixing?

Sorry, my mental abilities are dulled from the stress and insomnia caused by the pandemic, so I have more trouble understanding things than usual :<

Show 12 quoted lines

> Am 25.03.2020 um 21:38 schrieb Eric Wong:
> > > 2.25.1.windows.1
> > I'm not sure how git-config or chomp() behaves on Windows systems
> > with CRLF line endings, though.
> > 
> > A possibility would be replacing chomp(@v) with:
> > 
> > 	s/\r?\n\z//s for @v;
> 
> Yes that has to be done. Its implemented in
> 
> +    $v  =~ s/[\x0A\x0D]//g if (defined $v);

Does that mean you'll send a v2 of the patch which uses

	s/\r?\n\z//s for @v;

Thanks in advance for clarifying.