From: Johannes Schindelin Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:55:16 GMT Subject: Re: Unresolved issues Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20070221104209.GM21842@admingilde.org> Hi, On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Martin Waitz wrote: > 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