Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2010, #04; Wed, 23)

[Finn Arne Gangstad <finnag@pvv.org>]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:21:49PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> > If .gitattributes is different on the different sides, or if you
> > enable autocrlf, the current repo contents may change after
> > git-to-worktree and worktree-to-git again.
> 
> IOW, g2w-then-w2g may not be an identity function.

Absolutely, pretty much by definition this cannot be the case (and is
not the case for any of the built-in filters like eol, autocrlf,
ident), since you have no control of what you have in the repository
before you enable the filter.

What we assume though is that g2w(g2w(x)) == g2w(x). I think it is
very hard to come up with a reasonable case for a filter where that is
not the case.

> If we were to encourage use of this codepath to wider audiences, we may
> need to have a document for people who write smudge/clean filters.  In
> order for the result to be stable, applying g2w-then-w2g once again on top
> of the result of running g2w-then-w2g on anything should be no-op, no?

This _has_ to work, otherwise you would get dirty contents after a
checkout, and that would be horrible.

So, the follolwing should be true:

g2w(x) == g2w(g2w(x))
A -> g2w() -> B -> g2w() -> B ... 

w2g(g2w(x)) == w2g(g2w(w2g(g2w(x))))
X -> g2w() -> w2g() -> Y -> g2w() -> w2g() -> Y ...

Running w2g() twice should also be the same as running it once. 
I thought nothing in git required it as such, but in the case of a
missing smudge filter git will call w2g() on something that is already
cleaned. I think the clean/smudge guidelines should be:

  "Both clean and smudge filters should be idempotent; running them
   multiple times should not alter the contents further."

- Finn Arne