On Fri, 7 May 2010, Avery Pennarun wrote: > > 1) Whether a project has files that should be EOL-converted > automatically (we seem to all agree that this is set in > .gitattributes, whichever attribute is used). > > 2) Whether a particular person wants those particular files to be > EOL-converted, and what to convert them to. So? If we were to have a .gitconfig file, then both of those things would just work. It's no different from Eyvind's patch, except the exact details on syntax (and which file to set) would differ slightly. So it's a syntactic difference, nothing more. That said, I don't think the extra .gitconfig is even worth it, the same way I do _not_ think Eyvind's extra .gitattributes things are worth it. We already have perfectly good .gitattributes, and the only real issue is that they just don't take effect in some situations where people would _want_ them to take effect. So just a small semantic change to how .gitattributes crlf works would likely make everybody happy. The only downside is that it _is_ a semantic change. It really would change existing git behavior. Now, I think most people would consider the change in behavior to be a clear improvement, but hey... Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html