Re: [PATCH] Fix 'crlf' attribute semantics.
- From
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
- Date
- Apr 15, 2007, 23:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vd52519vj.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20070415233722.GA20222@hermes>
Tom Prince <tom.prince@ualberta.net> writes:
<offtopic>Please do not rudely point other people with mail-followup-to; I did not want to address this message to Linus but wanted to talk to YOU specifically, and you stole a few seconds of my time, forcing me to rewrite my To: line </offtopic>
Show 8 quoted lines
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 04:10:56PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Earlier we said 'crlf lets the path go through core.autocrlf >> process while !crlf disables it altogether'. This fixes the >> semantics to: > > This change means there is no way to enable the automatic heuristics for a > specific pattern once it has been disable for a more generic pattern. Would it > make sense to make the attributes more than simply boolean?
I do not think that is a problem in practice. Do not set something to "false" explicitly with a generic pattern, if you might want to override it.