Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Since both the cleaned and the smudged version are supposed to be
> "authoritative" (as opposed to the textconv'ed one) one may argue either
> way what's the right approach.
Smudged one can never be authoritative. That is the whole point of smudge
filter and in general the whole convert_to_working_tree() infrastructure.
It changes depending on who you are (e.g. on what platform you are on).
So running comparison between two clean versions is the only sane thing to
do.
You could argue textconv should work on smudged contents or on clean
contents before smudging. As long as it is done consistently, I do not
care either way too deeply, as its output is not supposed to be used for
anything but human consumption. Two equally sane arrangement would be:
(1) Start from two clean contents (run convert_to_git() if contents were
obtained from the work tree), run textconv, run diff, and output the
result literally; or
(2) Start from two smudged contents (run convert_to_working_tree() for
contents taken from the repository), run textconv, run diff, and
run clean before sending the result to the output.
The former assumes a textconv filter that wants to work on clean
contents, the latter for a one that expects smudged input. I probably
would suggest going the former approach, as it is consistent with the
general principle in other parts of the system (the internal processing
happens on clean contents).
Both of the above two assumes that the output should come in clean form;
it is consistent with the way normal diff is generated for consumption by
git-apply. You can certainly argue that the final output should be in
smudged form when textconv is used, as it is purely for human consumption,
and is not even supposed to be fed to apply.
--
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
