Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Don't warn about missing EOL for symlinks

From: Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:55:58 +0200

Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 03.06.2010 19:07:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 04:57:44PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> 
>> May I kindly direct you to the next parts you cut out, especially the
>> one talking about "described thorougly along with the
>> rationale in 3/4", and to the commit message of 3/4? :)
>>
>> I'm not breaking existing tests, of course, which also test
>> format-patch/apply cycles with symlinks.
> 
> Yes, but you are breaking "git diff | git apply", aren't you? It is

We don't have any tests for that then. I ran all tests with my patch.

> already broken with textconv, but that is a new feature that people opt
> into by using it. Symlink patches are a feature that has worked fine
> until now with the above command.
> 
> I don't think "but they should be using plumbing to generate patches"
> is the right answer, either. Yes, we expect the diff porcelain to behave
> differently depending on configuration, but with the exception of
> textconv, it always produces an actual applicable patch.

...which is why you need to use diff --no-textconv for scripting, which
is why I use that to decide about the symlink warnings!

One could introduce a separate config for that, of course, if you mind
unguarded diff|apply. But don't you think that those "No newline"
warnings are just plain stupid for symlinks?

Michael