Re: PR #137 and #138

Hmm... I think we can pull out that attribute, as it should be re-stating a
default. I included it because the source w3c repo had it.

Anyway, feel free to commit it that way, Rolf, (or I can do a commit for
that later.)

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Vijay Bharadwaj <vijaybh@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Weird, I see that too.
>
>
>
> Commenting out this line in .gitattributes:
>
> * binary diff
>
>
>
> Makes things work properly again. For some reason the default is not being
> overridden by the more specific *.bs rule. The weird thing is that “git
> diff master” does work without this modification, so in some corner of
> git’s crazy inner workings it does understand that this is a text file.
> Maybe someone more knowledgeable about git can find a way to debug this
> further.
>
>
>
> For now, in the interest of making forward progress, I would:
>
> -          Modify .gitattributes to comment out the line above
>
> -          Do the merge
>
> -          Revert the change to .gitattributes
>
>
>
> *From:* Rolf Lindemann [mailto:rlindemann@noknok.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2016 1:08 AM
> *To:* Vijay Bharadwaj <vijaybh@microsoft.com>; 'Rolf Lindemann' <
> rlindemann@noknok.com>
> *Cc:* public-webauthn@w3.org
> *Subject:* AW: PR #137 and #138
>
>
>
> Hi Vijay,
>
>
>
> I would like to do the merge but git merge is treating index.bs as *
> *binary** file and hence doesn’t do anything helpful:
>
> >git merge master -v
>
> >warning: Cannot merge binary files: index.bs (HEAD vs. master)
>
>
>
> .gitattributes exists and contains the line
>
> *.bs              cleantext
>
>
>
> Do you get the same message when trying the merge?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>   Rolf
>
> *Von:* Vijay Bharadwaj [mailto:vijaybh@microsoft.com
> <vijaybh@microsoft.com>]
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 12. Juli 2016 01:42
> *An:* Rolf Lindemann
> *Cc:* public-webauthn@w3.org
> *Betreff:* PR #137 and #138
>
>
>
> Rolf,
>
>
>
> It looks like you have at least two LGTMs on each of these, but the PRs
> have conflicts that need to be resolved before they can be merged. What are
> the next steps here?
>
>
>
> It seems like #138 can be merged as is, and #137 can be merged modulo
> Adam’s question on the AAGUID. Perhaps an AAGUID field could also be added
> to the TPM attestation format? The Android attestation format would not
> seem to need such an addition as it already carries all the information
> that one would need inside the SafetyNet response.
>