Re: [PATCH 0/2] Demonstrate and partially work around a gitattributes problem

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Peff,

On Tue, 16 May 2017, Jeff King wrote:

> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:38:36AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > > -			add_pending_object(revs, a_obj, this);
> > > -			add_pending_object(revs, b_obj, next);
> > > +			add_pending_object_with_path(revs, a_obj, this,
> > > +						     oc.mode,
> > > +						     oc.path[0] ? oc.path : NULL);
> > > +			add_pending_object_with_path(revs, b_obj, next,
> > > +						     oc2.mode,
> > > +						     oc2.path[0] ? oc2.path : NULL);
> > 
> > The fix is surprisingly simple, and I think it definitely goes in
> > the right direction.
> > 
> > Somehow, it bothers me to be forced to view (a_obj, this, from_sha1,
> > oc) vs (b_obj, next, sha1, oc2) as a sensibly corresponding pair of
> > tuples, but that is not something your introduction of "oc2"
> > started, so I won't complain ;-).
> 
> Yes, in my polishing I switched this out at least "oc_a" and "oc_b" so
> we could be sure they match correctly. I think this whole "dotdot"
> conditional could be pulled out to its own function, and probably
> consistently use "a" and "b" for the endpoints. I'll see what
> refactoring I can do to make it more readable.

So you drive this forward? That would really help me a lot. Please make my
1/2 part of your patches to that end.

Thanks,
Dscho