From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: diff: use built-in patterns by default via git attributes Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 15:42:47 -0500 Message-ID: <20141209204247.GD12001@peff.net> References: <54875916.7020107@thequod.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Hahler X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 09 21:42:57 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 1XyRcU-0005gH-W5 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 21:42:55 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752058AbaLIUmu (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 15:42:50 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:50726 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751777AbaLIUmu (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 15:42:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 21039 invoked by uid 102); 9 Dec 2014 20:42:49 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:42:49 -0600 Received: (qmail 4091 invoked by uid 107); 9 Dec 2014 20:42:53 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 15:42:53 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 09 Dec 2014 15:42:47 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54875916.7020107@thequod.de> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:18:30PM +0100, Daniel Hahler wrote: > I'm wondering why the built-in patterns (defined in userdiff.c) are not > being applied by default, e.g. what you would normally do in > core.attributesfile via: > > *.py diff=python > > Wouldn't it make sense to provide certain defaults for attributes, where > Git provides enhanced patterns? It's been discussed: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/187269 It ended up with a lot of back-and-forth over which extensions belonged to which type, and whether the C funcname pattern was terrible or not. I got sick of it and dropped the patch. You are welcome to try resurrecting it. :) It might help to read the discussion and drop any contentious names. Since that thread, the C/C++ pattern has improved greatly, so it might not meet so much resistance. -Peff