Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Arguably yes, but that's not the approach we take when the attributes > file is too large, a line in the file is is too long or the file > contains a negative filename pattern. For those cases we print a > warning and continue. The recently merged e36f009e69b (merge: replace > atoi() with strtol_i() for marker size validation, 2024-10-24) > followed suit and warns rather than dies for an invalid marker > size. It would be nice to be consistent in the way we treat invalid > attributes. Arguably yes, but being careful when adding a new check and changing established behaviour, risking to break existing users, are different. > Consistently dying and telling the user how to fix the > problem would be a reasonable approach on the client side but I wonder > if it could cause problems for forges running "git diff" and "git > merge-tree" on a server though. That's an interesting aspect. I wonder what happens when somebody pushes a project with a .gitattributes with such a conflicting setting to GitHub or GitLab. Would that bring the world to its end ;-)?
