check-attr doesn't respect recursive definitions
Hi, I am trying to write a custom archiving script that checks the export-ignore attribute to know which files from an ls-files output it should skip. Through this I noticed that for files in directories for which the export-ignore (or any other) attribute is set, check-attr still reports 'unspecified'. More precisely: $ git init test Initialized empty Git repository in /home/jan/test/.git/ $ cd test $ mkdir foo $ touch foo/bar $ echo foo export-ignore .gitattributes $ git check-attr export-ignore foo foo: export-ignore: set $ git check-attr export-ignore foo/bar foo/bar: export-ignore: unspecified I would expect the last command to also report 'set'. I've also tried other patterns like 'foo/' and 'foo*', but it didn't make any difference. Is this expected behaviour? It does make checking the attributes of single files somewhat more difficult. git-archive ignores the directory as expected, but unfortunately it doesn't have an option to just list the files it would archive instead of actually archiving them. This is with git version 1.7.10.4. -Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: check-attr doesn't respect recursive definitions
Thanks for the clarifications. Just a quick comment about the summary: Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote: Yeah, I had the same thought. So you would have to either: 1. Hook the feature into git-archive, which knows about how it recurses, and can report the correct set of paths. or 2. Tell check-attr (or some post-processor) to apply the attribute to elements below the path (or possibly to prune out such paths). This is not the same as recursive application, because you cannot negate it (i.e., you actually find out the final attrs for both foo and foo/bar, and then say the attr for 'foo' overrides the attr for 'foo/bar'. I posted a patch for (1), but it felt not-very-general. But (2) also feels gross and not very general. Even though it could in theory be used for things besides git-archive, it is really just applying git-archive's pruning rule, which other programs likely don't care about. I actually think the first approach is not such a bad idea, it would make archive more of a general-purpose archiving tool/helper for the repository rather than just something for the special cases of tars and zips. But I guess that's somewhat subjective. Cheers, Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: check-attr doesn't respect recursive definitions
Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Jan Larres j...@majutsushi.net wrote: I would expect the last command to also report 'set'. I've also tried other patterns like 'foo/' and 'foo*', but it didn't make any difference. Try foo/**. You need 1.8.2 though. That indeed works exactly the way I would like! Thanks a lot! Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
