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=1.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, LIST_MIRROR_RECEIVED,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 C971E1F670 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:29:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229948AbiBPK3A (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Feb 2022 05:29:00 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:59966 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230389AbiBPK24 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Feb 2022 05:28:56 -0500 Received: from ring.crustytoothpaste.net (ring.crustytoothpaste.net [IPv6:2600:3c04::f03c:92ff:fe9e:c6d8]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 680AF21D425 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 02:28:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from camp.crustytoothpaste.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:b056:101:a6ae:7d13:8741:9028]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ring.crustytoothpaste.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68A4B5A062; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:28:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crustytoothpaste.net; s=default; t=1645007306; bh=NSx1TLNCtW5Fshz2SOAnr75AQi0A2oBFWbU6xamgvBE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Date:To:CC: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=azmHUIAC3xfmPvIHZvMvKSYIYZyfC1OllKoqC0qtlcvFGLNvo5K+yRi8b+5iE3ztc ZehTLJRuJuJzhgBujthfHOc00rSSllCLYfybD7/fzXoBRb8pn9JeVzFVC+YTKuVsvk HQ2HJ036+WQ0S1J2KZSMnqlyMU7cEBwEmV4ilbC7PZk0OQQewKR574MOHayvuPKseH dAwQAnmx0dHwGZgEzjcNSeWH99DiyYyEShUKdhIm6ayqT6cMQtwhaMfybF/V2ayHC6 GLXCaqTrLMBrxkHI2o8B3mQOnOl8l5+ZY9VuWfHOqHxREACK36ROkyut5IyjmUjcYT a99w8ACBnyXIb8RS1pb3gPesVcEbCyL4ohqkGqKBntouZRFqRBJBIsYhCOt8MKJH8E 3LpnFOEV7oQBGYsVa00E/TFKoEk6FhRwLh4XHsJUajOCk2wH92NzcWTPI5rHlmhjse sQjYiQqZQvjm7SMUhIRhKeTAclpEMjxv16+xL4toW8OEmmSAsWT Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:28:24 +0000 From: "brian m. carlson" To: Johannes Sixt Cc: Torsten =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6gershausen?= , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Improvements to tests and docs for .gitattributes eol Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: "brian m. carlson" , Johannes Sixt , Torsten =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6gershausen?= , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano References: <20220111021507.531736-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <20220214020827.1508706-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <20220214204631.mquj645jt5qajwku@tb-raspi4> <9ab7761a-ff63-f809-47af-033825e5779e@kdbg.org> <9ce63b16-cf75-3404-88cf-0623194db07b@kdbg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XtnbrmpsgaXQI0AY" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9ce63b16-cf75-3404-88cf-0623194db07b@kdbg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/2.1.4 (2021-12-11) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org --XtnbrmpsgaXQI0AY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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) >=20 > if ... set or unspecified or if auto then ... detected ... and LF >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 specific condition>"? The situation is that eol is in effect if and only if: * 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. 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. --=20 brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) Toronto, Ontario, CA --XtnbrmpsgaXQI0AY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.3.1 (GNU/Linux) iHUEABYKAB0WIQQILOaKnbxl+4PRw5F8DEliiIeigQUCYgzRxgAKCRB8DEliiIei gVE6AQCCaoFASaSaAciwCM9qIhDS6Vdz3Rf68CCEV3NUfX65XgD/UZ51Bs/dAVHl WGK2Yw6R7P0ZTfIBa4yb4BpqoZ6cMgU= =JpyJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XtnbrmpsgaXQI0AY--