From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,LIST_MIRROR_RECEIVED,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA141F670 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 07:44:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230356AbiBPHno (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Feb 2022 02:43:44 -0500 Received: from gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com ([23.128.96.19]:53752 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229468AbiBPHnn (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Feb 2022 02:43:43 -0500 Received: from bsmtp5.bon.at (bsmtp5.bon.at [195.3.86.187]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3858F27FF0 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 23:43:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsmtp.bon.at (unknown [192.168.181.102]) by bsmtp5.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Jz84T17BWz5vHh for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 08:00:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.0.98] (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Jz83s0rbvz5tl9; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 08:00:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <9ce63b16-cf75-3404-88cf-0623194db07b@kdbg.org> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 08:00:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Improvements to tests and docs for .gitattributes eol Content-Language: en-US To: "brian m. carlson" References: <20220111021507.531736-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <20220214020827.1508706-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <20220214204631.mquj645jt5qajwku@tb-raspi4> <9ab7761a-ff63-f809-47af-033825e5779e@kdbg.org> From: Johannes Sixt Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Torsten_B=c3=b6gershausen?= , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 15.02.22 um 23:46 schrieb brian m. carlson: > On 2022-02-15 at 07:05:44, Johannes Sixt wrote: >> Sorry, I don't find this description clear at all due to the many 'or's >> and 'and's and no indication which parts belong together. The original >> text was clear (but, of course, not helpful if it was wrong). >> >> I suggest to rewrite the paragraph into format with bullet points: >> >> ... only if one of the following is true: >> >> - is set and foo or bar >> - is unspecified and either >> - this >> - or that >> - is set to auto but not... >> >> or something along the lines. I can't propose actual text because I have >> no clue what the truth is. > > Unfortunately, the fact is that this behaviour is complicated. I can > try a reroll with a bulleted list, though. 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 " where 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 "? -- Hannes