On 03/09, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:21:11PM -0500, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > > > > And not ."gitmodules"? > > > > > > What happens when we later add ".gitsomethingelse"? > > > > > > Do we have to worry about the case where the set of git "special > > > files" (can we have a better name for them please, by the way?) > > > understood by the sending side and the receiving end is different? > > > > > > I have a feeling that a mode that makes anything whose name begins > > > with ".git" excempt from the size based cutoff may generally be > > > easier to handle. > > > > I forgot about ".gitmodules". The more I think about it, maybe > > we should always include them (or anything starting with ".git*") > > and ignore the size, since they are important for correct behavior. > > I'm also in favor of staking out ".git*" as "this is special and belongs > to Git".
I agree, .git* files should probably be the bare minimum of files included. Especially since things like .gitattributes can effect things like checkout. > > A while back when we discussed whether to allow symlinks for > .gitattributes, etc, I think the consensus was to treat the whole > ".git*" namespace consistently. I haven't followed up with patches yet, > but my plan was to go that route. Well if I remember correctly you sent out some patches for .gitattributes but I got in the way with the refactoring work! :) -- Brandon Williams
