From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FSL_HELO_FAKE,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD1A620A40 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:16:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752552AbdLESQt (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:16:49 -0500 Received: from mail-it0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:37724 "EHLO mail-it0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752179AbdLESQs (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:16:48 -0500 Received: by mail-it0-f46.google.com with SMTP id d137so3709799itc.2 for ; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 10:16:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Yl5IUNnh8q0G+bZ2pIpLFF6a5fPe2/oe9sWlY3ZLWJM=; b=By37tFNdkww/P8nDd/coNcndzA085aHSK/N6lNIAZy3uJh9axYz1ebn35i9N8l/e/P oW3k09yUO/wDur10cHaF0MzhLCPFoiGqxUtGohZ88zRzsX8ysDLtzA4a294+DmjRA6NR p1VGsT63ggKC/4upbquIAqzQx9PkgYaILP2MQAlJ/lvVAJZ9chKdsjt18/xo9l0Z4ota 8ZgzP8m1Hgg15PlvDZxJ6QAYqcsaG3VNHYOsOJ0NI2l5LXAPUlK4Iy//knz4FXC7zfCM POX23fm9ISXSIRlGEUud0MY2OaZIOwg5Vpv7mIbSRdYzYg+eTRYECsS51SxoSmST+gcB CoSw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Yl5IUNnh8q0G+bZ2pIpLFF6a5fPe2/oe9sWlY3ZLWJM=; b=Lw/rtJnrIvNetn7bUwZbS332Sw0dH0o5ENe+geyuHmbTP4DtjPDL5asGT2BjAzJKS0 1EhQawNi2AFGghj9dUY0cfUabFdRHcCLxy87bk1TSNROLUkAFgE4Y/XpSDN4C0Vu5nUp 2edIDvqZ5LWIaVA3z6Z6uldAHKjKQtGvR76nIXvLpUZFNY94UEJ7B3Md2/o1MQxINF02 wntOWutgvrRZjUXanZ9BujVjONWwJMP2HcXpNgqDiRzdT+bH+g1iOjHNgL11jz+1e4z6 Hm2wlH5bBqCYbyqimHDEyJOVQS5l1j3caQRJyYepO3aI/Edm2I0PYdcR7ZC1EU6EjwjR /FSA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIvVlG7uD4iyngKdqP6HMxqic/G3JkhM/Ihn9b/xWGWw/k2rfEl 2KFTW7q0fu1SKumtWq9H3IM2Gw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMb2k/UJq4LcKDluVlS83bnT1DFntZUd+LcPNs2ChCA6Ff+CPz0Rhr6dHmsPZgGZ4lRgfUUQLA== X-Received: by 10.36.221.216 with SMTP id t207mr10095673itf.112.1512497807576; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 10:16:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2620:0:100e:422:f83a:9bb:41ed:d5e6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m91sm280761iod.76.2017.12.05.10.16.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Dec 2017 10:16:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:16:45 -0800 From: Brandon Williams To: Ben Boeckel Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, brad.king@kitware.com Subject: Re: gitattributes not read for diff-tree anymore in 2.15? Message-ID: <20171205181645.GA159917@google.com> References: <20171204212255.GA19059@megas.kitware.com> <20171204230355.GA52452@google.com> <20171205154244.GA16581@megas.kitware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171205154244.GA16581@megas.kitware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 12/05, Ben Boeckel wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 15:03:55 -0800, Brandon Williams wrote: > > Reading the attributes files should be done regardless if the gitmodules > > file is read. The gitmodules file should only come into play if you are > > dealing with submodules. > > Yeah, it doesn't seem to make sense why this commit breaks us, but there > it is *shrug*. While it doesn't make the most sense, I still wouldn't be surprised if I missed something when writing that patch that inadvertently caused an issue. > > > Do you mind providing a reproduction recipe with expected outcome vs > > actual outcome and I can take a closer look. > > I'll work on one. It isn't as simple as I thought it was :) . The setup > we do before running the checks is apparently involved as running it > from the command line is not exhibiting the difference. > > --Ben Perfect, thanks! -- Brandon Williams