Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix crlf attribute handling to match documentation

From: Andy Parkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 10:58:29 +0100

On Saturday 2007, May 19, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> The check you modified in the first hunk is not the above '<='
> comparison but is this:

I was talking about the second hunk there though, which I mentioned 
with "...skipped in crlf_to_worktree()...".   In which case the 
description matches.

> 	(action == CRLF_GUESS && !auto_crlf)
>
> and "core.autocrlf = input" makes "auto_crlf = -1", so when
> action is not GUESS, or even when action is GUESS, if the config
> is set to "input", the if() statement you patched in the first
> hunk should not trigger.  The above description is different from
> what the code was doing.

As I say, the description was for the second hunk.

The fault was my last paragraph, "Similarly for crlf_to_worktree(), if 
core.autocrlf is false, no", which should have said "Similarly for 
crlf_to_git()".  Sorry.

With that small change I think my description was correct.  However, it 
obviously wasn't clear - apologies.

Andy

-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET
[email-masked]