Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] ce_compare_data() did not respect conversion

Torsten Bögershausen writes: > We only need to pay extra attention when there is an external > clean/smudge filter defined - otherwise we should be able to skip > it - after 10/10. The last two words worries me. The goal of the suggested fix was to make sure that $ git reset --hard &&

Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] ce_compare_data() did not respect conversion

> Let's separate 01-04/10 into a different topic and give it its own > name; tb/convert-eol-autocrlf was the name I picked primarily for > 07/10 but 01-04/10 are not about that fix. Both 02 and 04 are about > autocrlf (the former is "core.eol is irrelevant when core.autocrlf > is there", the latt

Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] ce_compare_data() did not respect conversion

Torsten Bögershausen writes: >> Sure, I wasn't saying 1-4 looked wrong at all. I was wondering why >> the ones in the middle, especially 7, shouldn't be moved forward >> together with them. > The main reason is, that 7 breaks t6038 under Windows. > (And I discovered that too late :-( > And as Wi

Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] ce_compare_data() did not respect conversion

On 05/03/2016 08:31 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: Torsten Bögershausen writes: This will probably take some time, so that's why I asked if 1/10..4/10 could proceed as is ? Sure, I wasn't saying 1-4 looked wrong at all. I was wondering why the ones in the middle, especially 7, shouldn't be moved

Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] ce_compare_data() did not respect conversion

Torsten Bögershausen writes: > This will probably take some time, so that's why I asked if 1/10..4/10 could > proceed as is ? Sure, I wasn't saying 1-4 looked wrong at all. I was wondering why the ones in the middle, especially 7, shouldn't be moved forward together with them. -- To unsubscribe

Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] ce_compare_data() did not respect conversion

On 2016-05-02 21.33, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > Let's step back a bit and make sure we are on the same page. I > think this "series" conflates a bit too many things into a single > topic. > > * The comparison between the index and the working tree, i.e. "git >diff", sh

Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] ce_compare_data() did not respect conversion

Junio C Hamano writes: > Torsten Bögershausen writes: > >> On 29.04.16 23:09, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >>> Well, didn't I do exactly the above much earlier and discarded it >>> because that breaks the definition of "diff"? Or is this doing >>> something differently? >> >> Yes, and I try to snea

Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] ce_compare_data() did not respect conversion

Torsten Bögershausen writes: > On 29.04.16 23:09, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Well, didn't I do exactly the above much earlier and discarded it >> because that breaks the definition of "diff"? Or is this doing >> something differently? > > Yes, and I try to sneak it in anyway ;-) > > I spend some

Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] ce_compare_data() did not respect conversion

On 29.04.16 23:09, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Well, didn't I do exactly the above much earlier and discarded it > because that breaks the definition of "diff"? Or is this doing > something differently? Yes, and I try to sneak it in anyway ;-) I spend some time debugging how to get t6038 passed, an

Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] ce_compare_data() did not respect conversion

tbo...@web.de writes: > From: Torsten Bögershausen > > We define the working tree file is clean if either: > > * the result of running convert_to_git() on the working tree > contents matches what is in the index (because that would mean > doing another "git add" on the path is a no-op);

Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] ce_compare_data() did not respect conversion

tbo...@web.de writes: > From: Torsten Bögershausen > > We define the working tree file is clean if either: > > * the result of running convert_to_git() on the working tree > contents matches what is in the index (because that would mean > doing another "git add" on the path is a no-op);