Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Improvements to tests and docs for .gitattributes eol

[Torsten =?unknown-8bit?Q?B=C3=B6gershausen?= <tboegi@web.de>]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:28:24AM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On 2022-02-16 at 07:00:24, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> > Just so you know where my confusion arises from: Your updated text has
> > the structure (as I read it)
> >
> >    if ... set or unspecified or if auto then ... detected ... and LF
> >
> > It is unclear whether the 'then' conditions apply only to 'if auto'.
> > Even if the additional 'if' in the middle makes me think that the
> > 'then's apply only to the 'auto' case, it is sufficently vage because in
> > my mental model there is not much difference between an 'unset' and a
> > set-to-'auto' attribute, and I wonder why the 'then's should not apply
> > to the 'unset' case as well.
> >
> > Moreover, after re-reading the text, I notice that text may be read as
> > "this attribute has an effect only if <conditions>" where <conditions>
> > basically means "always except for when the 'if auto' case is not met",
> > right? Would it perhaps be better to write "has no effect if <very
> > specific condition>"?
>
> The situation is that eol is in effect if and only if:

Well written

>
> * text is set;
> * text is unspecified; or
> * text is auto, the file is detected as text, and the file has LF line
>   endings in the index.
>
> Alternately, it has no effect if and only if:
>
> * text is unset;
> * text is auto and the file is detected as binary; or
> * text is auto and the file is detected as text and has CRLF line
>   endings.
... CRLF line endings in the index.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^

One of the reasons that the eol attribute is not 100% well-specified
is that people should use the eol attribute together with text.

Either
text=auto eol=crlf
or
text=auto eol=lf
or
text eol=crlf
or
text eol=lf

Older git versions did treat
* text=auto
* eol=crlf

The same as
* text eol=crlf
Which did corrupt binary files.

Never git versions treat
* text=auto
* eol=crlf
as
* text=auto eol=crlf
in the sense that only auto-detected text files are converted,
if they had not been commited with crlf before.

In that sense I feel that the short form
eol=crlf
should be avoided

>
> I'm not sure one reads significantly easier than the other.  I slightly
> prefer the former because it has fewer conditions with multiple nested
> entries, though.
> --
> brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
> Toronto, Ontario, CA