Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/3] Per-repository end-of-line normalization

From: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com>
Date: May 7, 2010, 22:19 UTC
Message-ID: <i2l32541b131005071519nf49f8703s76f42f4fe9939b6f@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005071441341.901@i5.linux-foundation.org>

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

Show 27 quoted lines

> On Fri, 7 May 2010, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>> > I think "* auto-eol=true" is just crazy. We would _never_ want to do that.
>> > Any project that does that should be shot in the head.
>>
>> Just to clarify, is it crazy because that line would convert all
>> files, even binary ones, where core.autocrlf auto-detects whether
>> files are binary or text?
>
> No, presumably 'auto-eol' does the same auto-detection. Otherwise the name
> wouldn't make sense.
> [...]
> Eyvind Bernhardsen wrote:
>> Also, I meant to write "* crlf=auto", not "* auto-eol=true", if that makes it
>> any less crazy.
>
> Oh, yes. See my other email. "* crlf=auto" is at least sensible, although
> somewhat scary. At least with core.autocrlf=true, the user has to had
> [...]
>  (b) But let's say that you want to do it anyway (because you're lazy
>     and because autocrlf works pretty damn well in practice), isn't that
>     a really ugly and crazy thing to add _another_ attribute name for
>     that?
>
>     IOW, if you really want to say "do automatic crlf for this set of
>     paths", the natural syntax for that would be
>
>        * crlf=auto

Oh, good grief, I'm just getting more and more confused.

So just to keep all of this straight, I think there are still two proposals under consideration here:

a) add an in-project .gitconfig, in which case the above crlf=auto is exactly equivalent to "crlf attribute missing" (which is different from "crlf unset", hee hee, are we having fun yet?) since the crlf attribute is ignored unless core.autocrlf=true, and missing means to use the core.autocrlf setting;

OR

b) change the semantics of the crlf attribute, in which case crlf=auto is a new mode that means "use autocrlf on this file even if core.autocrlf is unset or unspecified".

Right? So in case (a), the new crlf=auto option is unneeded. Though it does seem as if we're trending toward case (b).

Thanks,

Avery