David Lang <david.lang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 1. it would be useful in many cases for the filter program to know > what file it's working on (and probably some other things), so there > are probably some command-line arguments that should be able to be > passed to the filter. I can see that you missed the class when Linus talked about how messy things would get once you allow the conversion to be stateful. I was in the class and remembered it ;-) Although I initially considered interpolating "%P" with pathname, I ended up deciding against it, to discourage people from abusing the filter for stateful conversion that changes the results depending on time, pathname, commit, branch and stuff. > 2. should this be done as a modification of the in-memory buffer (s > this patch does it?) or should it be done at the time of the > read/write, makeing the filter be responsible for actually doing the > disk I/O, which would give it the benifit of being able to do things > like set permissions and other things ... The conversion is not about overriding the mode bits recorded in tree objects, nor making git as a replacement for build procedure. > 3. why specify seperate clean/smudge programs instead of just one > script with a read/write parameter? I think the most common two ways have clean as a cleaner and smudge as a no-op (similar to crlf=input conversion), or clean and smudge are inverse operations (similar to crlf=true conversion. I do not see a sane case where clean and smudge are the same, unless you are thinking about the toy demonstration test piece I added to t0021 which uses rot13 as both clean and smudge filters. - 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