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=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham 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 45A301F404 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:12:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751084AbeCTEMI (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:12:08 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:35396 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750888AbeCTEMI (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:12:08 -0400 Received: (qmail 28942 invoked by uid 109); 20 Mar 2018 04:12:08 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:12:08 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 28865 invoked by uid 111); 20 Mar 2018 04:13:03 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:13:03 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:12:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:12:06 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Dakota Hawkins Cc: Git Subject: Re: .gitattributes override behavior (possible bug, or documentation bug) Message-ID: <20180320041205.GC12938@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20180320023423.GA10143@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:17:04PM -0400, Dakota Hawkins wrote: > Sorry to tack on to my previous email, but I just thought of this: > > If something like "-diff=lfs" won't do what I (and git-lfs) thought it > would, do you think it would be prudent/reasonable to suggest git-lfs > add a "no-lfs" filter for exactly this case? That way I could have > explicit exclusions without any "diff=foo" shenanigans. It might be if my earlier email weren't totally wrong. ;) I think the "!filter" syntax that Junio mentioned would do what you want. -Peff