Hi Junio,

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
> > The feature in question is also highly unlikely to be used as much by
> > non-Windows users as by Windows users due to the unfortunate choice of the
> > default setting for core.autocrlf.
> My vague recollection from some years ago was that even among those
> who were active in msysGit development there were people who
> advocated for straight-thru and others who wanted core.autocrlf as
> the default, but I do not know the current state of the affairs.

I remember this very non-vaguely, for I was one of the people advocating
straight-through. I basically was shot down by people using Windows more
regularly than I did.

In any case, now is not the time to lament about this.

> In any case, in the ideal future, I would imagine that we would want
> to have "cat-file blob" to enable "--filters" by default; that would
> make cat-file and hash-objects a pair of symmetric operations.

I would advocate against that. It is not like the terms "hash-object" and
"cat-file" even *look* like they are opposites.

The main problem you face with making --filters the default is that it is
a possibly costly switch. Too costly in my opinion, just think of git-lfs.

> That certainly will not happen within 2.x timeframe, and the new
> "cat-file --filter" feature can appear in 2.11 at the earliest, but


> I think by that time (or with a few more cycles) we may have a
> handful other improvements that are backward incompatible lined up
> to urge us to think about bumping the version number to 3.0.  I
> recall writing "Will keep in next to see if anybody screams" a few
> times already, and they are all good excuses to invite a version
> bump.
> To prepare for that future, we would probably want to start updating
> in-tree scripts (including the tests) so that they call "cat-file
> --no-filter blob" whereever they currently say "cat-file blob" in or


> soon after 2.11.  Of course, if some of them currently pipe
> "cat-file blob" output to munge it to produce what --filters would
> have done (I didn't check), we would want to rewrite them to use the
> new feature "cat-file --filter blob" when we do so.  In short, there


> won't be any "cat-file blob" call that does not have either --filters
> or --no-filters, except the ones we write specifically to check the
> updated default behaviour when that happens.
> Would that sound like a good longer-term plan?

Apart from my objecting against changing the default of cat-file, it sure
sounds like a good long-term plan ;-)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to