On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 03:23:10PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Lars Schneider <larsxschnei...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On 30 Aug 2016, at 20:59, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> "abort" could be ambiguous because it could be read as "abort only
> >>> this file". "abort-all" would work, though. Would you prefer to see
> >>> "error" replaced by "abort" and "error-all" by "abort-all"?
> >> 
> >> No.
> >> 
> >> I was primarily reacting to "-all" part, so anything that ends with
> >> "-all" is equally ugly from my point of view and not an improvement.
> >> 
> >> As I said, "error-all" as long as other reviewers are happy with is
> >> OK by me, too.
> >
> > Now, I see your point. How about "error-and-stop" or "error-stop"
> > instead of "error-all"?
> Not really.  I was primarily reacting to having "error" and
> "error-all", that share the same prefix.  Changing "-all" suffix to
> "-stop" does not make all that difference to me.  But in any case,
> as long as other reviewers are happy with it, it is OK by me, too.
> > Good argument. However, my intention here was to mimic the v1 filter
> > mechanism.
> I am not making any argument and in no way against the chosen
> behaviour.  That "intention here" that was revealed after two
> iterations is something we would want to see as the reasoning
> behind the choice of the final behaviour recorded somewhere,
> and now I drew it out of you, I achieved what I set out to do
> initially ;-)
> > I am not sure I understand your last sentence. Just to be clear:
> > Would you prefer it, if Git would just close the pipe to the filter process
> > on Git exit and leave the filter running?
> As a potential filter writer, I would probably feel it the easiest
> to handle if there is no signal involved.  My job would be to read
> from the command pipe, react to it, and when the command pipe gives
> me EOF, I am expected to exit myself.  That would be simple enough.
> >> I meant it as primarily an example people can learn from when they
> >> want to write their own.
> >
> > I think `t/t0021/rot13-filter.pl` (part of this patch) serves this purpose 
> > already.
> I would expect them to peek at contrib/, but do you seriously expect
> people to comb through t/ directory?

How about a filter written in C, and placed in ./t/helper/ ?
At least I feel that a filter in C-language could be a starting point
for others which prefer, depending on the task the filter is going to do,
to use shell scripts, perl, python or any other high-level language.

A test case, where data can not be filtered, would be a minimum.
As Jakub pointed out, you can use iconv with good and bad data.

Reply via email to