Re: Unresolved issues

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Feb 21, 2007, 12:55 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0702211348060.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20070221104209.GM21842@admingilde.org>

Hi,

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Martin Waitz wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 01:39:48AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > In that case, .gitattributes (I mean a tracked one) would be wrong, 
> > wrong, wrong.
> 
> I don't think so.

What you conveniently "forgot" to quote was the case: if we want this to decide on when to use crlf<->lf transformation, we should decide that locally.

But you are probably right: the information if a file _is_ fair game for crlf munging is probably something we might want to _be able_ to have tracked.

BUT there are a whole lot of problems with that approach, as Junio pointed out, like merging attributes files, like what to do if a file is not changed by a commit, but its attributes are, etc.

So, why not make the autodetection really brilliant at first, and _if_ we hit a hard case which cannot be autodetect, _then_ add .gitattributes which should _only_ force settings on misdetected files?

Ciao, Dscho