Re: Surprising interaction of "binary" and "eol" gitattributes

["Torsten Bögershausen" <tboegi@web.de>]

On 03/10/2015 11:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> Well, that's true, but the "eol" attribute can regain its effect if
>> "binary" is followed by "text" or "text=auto". So I guess the simplest
>> question is as follows. Suppose I have the following .gitattributes:
>>
>>      a.foo eol=crlf
>>      a.foo binary
>>      a.foo text
>>
>> It is obvious in this case that a.foo should be treated as a text file.
>> Should it be processed with "eol=crlf", or should the intervening
>> "binary" imply "-eol"?
> I would say former.  You find out what attributes apply to a path
> and then consider the collective effect of these attributes that
> survived.
>
> So the second "No it is not text" which is overruled by the "oops,
> no that is text" later should not get in the picture, I would say.
>
> As binary is not just -text and turns other things off, those other
> things will be off after these three.
Not sure if I follow:
Whenever you specify -text, the eol doesn't matter, or what do I miss ?

Specifying "*.txt eol=crlf" includes "*.txt text",
but with the following it should be possible to turn on "text=auto"

cat .gitattributes
* eol=crlf
*.sh eol=lf
* text=auto
*.png -text