From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:44:00 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix 'crlf' attribute semantics.
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>

> 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.