On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That said, I believe that the gitattributes(5) manpage does an okay > job of covering this and that that thread came to a clear conclusion: > > https://public-inbox.org/git/20171026203046.fu3z5ngnw7hckfrn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > I commented at [1] that I found the conclusion of the rev news entry > misleading and confusing but it doesn't appear that there is anything > I can do about that. Well, you could have provided a pull request or otherwise suggested what you think would be a better conclusion for the article and why. If you just say that the above email is the conclusion, when it seems to me that another email from someone else is also a conclusion with a quite different outcome, it does not help much come to an agreement about what should be reported as the conclusion of the thread. > It's disappointing because if there is something > that was not covered in that thread, then it would be good to revive > it so we can improve the program's behavior or docs, but I wasn't able > to find out what was missed. Perhaps nothing was missed, but as the issue is complex, it is just difficult to explain and summarize it in a good way.
