Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> writes: >>> enum safe_crlf crlf_warn = (safe_crlf == SAFE_CRLF_FAIL >>> ? SAFE_CRLF_WARN >>> : safe_crlf); >>> + if (size_only) >>> + crlf_warn = SAFE_CRLF_FALSE; >> >> If you were to go this route, it may be sufficient to change its >> initialization from WARN to FALSE _unconditionally_, because this >> function uses the convert_to_git() only to _show_ the differences by >> computing canonical form out of working tree contents, and the >> conversion is not done to _write_ into object database to create a >> new object. > > Hm, since when (is it not used) ? Since forever, but my statement above said "this function", which may have confused you, where it could have said diff_populate_filespec(). Surely it is possible for somebody to diff_populate_filespec(s, 0) and then call hash_sha1_file(s->data, s->size, "blob", ...) to write the data into the object database to create a new object. But that sounds really crazy, no? > The SAFE_CRLF_FAIL was converted into WARN here: > commit 5430bb283b478991a979437a79e10dcbb6f20e28 > Author: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon Jun 24 14:35:04 2013 -0700 > > diff: demote core.safecrlf=true to core.safecrlf=warn Yes. > Does this all means that, looking back, 5430bb283b478991 could have been more > aggressive and could have used SAFE_CRLF_FALSE ? That is pretty much the statement, to which you said "since when", suspects. > And we can do this change now? I am not sure. The conversion the safe-crlf code does is unsafe and it is a disservice to users not to warn whenever we notice they are risking information loss. Maybe time they run "git diff" is not a good time to warn, as they may not be actually adding the file as-is, but if warning against information loss at "git diff" time is important enough, the I think that should not be squelched by the "--quiet" option, which is about "do not show the patch text output". It should not be taken as "do not diagnose any errors".