From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?VG9yc3RlbiBCw7ZnZXJzaGF1c2Vu?= Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] t0027: check the eol conversion warnings Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:37:05 +0100 Message-ID: <546F31F1.5050701@web.de> References: <546E5D26.8030109@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano , =?UTF-8?B?VG9yc3RlbiBCw7ZnZXJzaGF1?= =?UTF-8?B?c2Vu?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 21 13:37:22 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XrnSj-0001Ue-Ow for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:37:22 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758386AbaKUMhO (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Nov 2014 07:37:14 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.14]:58712 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755390AbaKUMhN (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Nov 2014 07:37:13 -0500 Received: from birne.local ([78.72.74.102]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M5flQ-1YBnBL3TQm-00xYKY; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:37:07 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:BothEsYIq9mHyc1b3zOMSjyjmrjcFBPMY0yS37bEF69hgUXiRry ozQDYpAH6frKd6mkmmKFn0Zklu4xpuGDea3rX8AhEc9Yi6z3GgsRbUW77qXZEBtXHkiddD/ qD3YEjznjUxp3AQBILAA2DHlk9ujX90a9tAhXaPLBErSEjH/aZJfrQK/W7L3OMXtnEdRNhr xkbPNlT6vtcBNzVzBy1zg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 20.11.14 23:37, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > --- > At a glance it is very hard to see what we might be _losing_ with this > change that claims to "add" new kinds of tests on top of existing ones. > > I am guessing that add-check-warn roughly corresponds to the old > create-file-in-repo but they have different calling conventions, or > something? > > Perhaps split it into two patches (or more), each of which does one > thing and one thing well? I suspect that even with a two-patch > split (e.g. the first of which only renames the function without > adding the new "grep in error messages that could be localized and > give false failures" code, and the second adds the lf/crlf stuff) > might make this at least readable. > > I dunno. > We shouldn't loose anything. The diff is hard to read, as some code is re-defined and re-used (and a diff side-by-side looks nicer than the patch) I will come back with a new commit message, which should explain things better ( or a 2-stepped patch) The long term idea is to improve the gray areas in convert.c, and to do that we need a reliable test frame work, to see what is improved or broken.