Re: Surprising interaction of "binary" and "eol" gitattributes

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 5, 2015, 22:08 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqwq2v14iv.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <54F88684.3020905@alum.mit.edu>

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

Show 23 quoted lines

> I would expect that the following .gitattributes file
>
>     *       eol=crlf
>     *.png   -text
>
> would leave EOL translation turned off for PNG files. In other words, I
> would expect that explicitly setting "-text" would take precedence over
> the fact that setting "eol" implies that a file should be considered to
> be "text".
>
> I would even more strongly expect
>
>     *       eol=crlf
>     *.png   binary
>
> to turn off EOL translation for PNG files.
>
> But in fact, in both of the above cases, EOL translation is turned *on*
> for PNG files.
>
> I propose that "-text" should override any setting for "eol" (which
> would of course fix both problems, since "binary" is equivalent to
> "-diff -merge -text"). What do people think?

Hmm, is there really something that needs a new proposal and opinions?

The way I read the flow in convert.c is:

    convert_to_git() uses input_crlf_action() to figure out what
    crlf_to_git() conversion is necessary.

    input_crlf_action() looks at text_attr and says CRLF_BINARY when
    it is CRLF_BINARY without looking at eol_attr at all.

    text_attr above is ca.crlf_action in convert_to_git().

    The whole ca.* comes from convert_attrs() inspecting attributes
    on the incoming path.

    convert_attrs() inspects "eol" and "text" attributes, among
    others, and sets crlf_action by calling git_path_check_crlf().

    git_path_check_crlf() looks at the 'text' attribute; if it is
    set to false, it returns CRLF_BINARY.

    crlf_to_git() when given crlf_action==CRLF_BINARY is a no-op.

So, with the above attributes where anything is eol=crlf by default and in addition *.png is binary (which contains -text), we shouldn't get any crlf munging. Am I reading/following the code incorrectly?

Puzzled....