From: Robert Buck Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 09:39:03 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH v3 4/5] Rename "crlf" attribute as "eolconv" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: [...] > Now, it _does_ make sense to say "eolconv=auto", but that's because it's > that totally different case: it's not about what the line ending > character is, it's about whether any eol conversion is done at all.  So > for _that_ case, it makes sense to use "eolconv", although even for that > case I think the name is not very _good_. > So if you rename these things, keep them separate.  Make the "am I a > text-file" boolean be a boolean (plus "auto"), and just call it "text". > And make the "what end of line to use" be just "eol" then. > > So you can have > >        *       text=auto,eol=crlf > > that means "autodetect whether it is text, and use crlf as eol". > > Now, I'd further suggest: > >  - "eol=xyz" with no "text" attribute automatically implies "text" being >   true. >  - "text=xyz" with no "eol" attribute implies "eol=native" > > so now you can write: > >        *.jpg -text >        *.txt text >        *.vcproj eol=crlf >        *.sh eol=lf >        * text=auto > > and that means: > >  - jpg files are binary >  - *.txt files are text, and we use the default ("native") line ending for >   them (implicit, since we don't have any matcing eol rule) >  - *.vcproj files are text (implicit), and we use CRLF line endings >  - *.sh files are text (implicit), and we use UNIX style line endings >  - everything else is auto-detected, and we implicitly use native line >   endings for them > > Doesn't that look finally sane? > > Because if we really rename the attributes, let's rename them _right_. > >                        Linus > Love it!