git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Dakota Hawkins <dakota@dakotahawkins.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Git <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: .gitattributes override behavior (possible bug, or documentation bug)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 23:17:04 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHnyXxR+03P8vG02dSuDCnRG0vsbOEWWsNBsKVsedgpkPNu=fQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHnyXxRcwq40W4tKm=Kscrsnb77yh7=eGDE=r5AZq073MPX9AQ@mail.gmail.com>

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.

Thanks again,

- Dakota

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Dakota Hawkins
<dakota@dakotahawkins.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the quick reply!
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 09:49:28PM -0400, Dakota Hawkins wrote:
>>
>>> Summary: Trying to apply attributes to file extensions everywhere
>>> except in one directory.
>>>
>>> .gitattributes:
>>>
>>>     *.[Pp][Nn][Gg] filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
>>>     /.readme-docs/ -filter=lfs -diff=lfs -merge=lfs
>>>
>>> Make some data:
>>>
>>>     echo "asldkjfa;sldkjf;alsdjf" > ./.readme-docs/test.png
>>>     git add -A
>>
>> As you noted below, that second line does not match your path, because
>> attributes on a directory aren't applied recursively. And it has nothing
>> to do with overriding. If you remove the png line entirely, you can see
>> that we still do not match it. You need to use "*" to match the paths.
>
> Ah, yes, I see that. Inconsistent with .gitignore (more below), right?
>
>> You may also find that "-diff=lfs" does not do quite what you want.
>> There is no way to say "cancel any previous attribute", which I think is
>> what you're trying for here. You can only override it with a new value.
>> So:
>>
>>   /.readme-docs/* -diff
>>
>> says "do not diff this". And:
>>
>>   /.readme-docs/* diff
>>
>> says "diff this as text, even if it looks binary".
>>
>> The best you can probably do is:
>>
>>   /.readme-docs/* diff=foo
>>
>> Since you have no diff.foo.* config, that will behave in the default way
>> (including respecting the usual "is it binary" checks). So a bit hacky,
>> but I think it would work as "ignore prior diff".
>>
>> And I think filter and merge drivers should work the same.
>
> That's interesting... in this case I was taking my advice on how this
> should work from the git-lfs folks. I have promised to share what I
> find here with them, so that will help at least :)
>
> I think that makes sense to me -- there would be no good way to tell
> it what the default should have been without explicitly telling it
> what to use instead.
>
>>> Is this me misunderstanding something in the documentation? I would
>>> expect "./.readme-docs/" to match "./.readme-docs/test.png" and
>>> override the earlier "*.[Pp][Nn][Gg]" attributes.
>>>
>>> I have found the following overrides to work in lieu of the directory match:
>>>
>>>     /.readme-docs/* -filter=lfs -diff=lfs -merge=lfs
>>>     /.readme-docs/**/* -filter=lfs -diff=lfs -merge=lfs
>>>
>>> ...but I don't see a justification in the documentation for this
>>> working and the original directory filter not working.
>>
>> I could not find anything useful in gitattributes(5). There's some old
>> discussion here:
>>
>>   https://public-inbox.org/git/slrnkldd3g.1l4.jan@majutsushi.net/
>
> If I follow that correctly: There's some initial speculation that it
> would be OK to apply the attributes recursively, which is then shot
> down because it wasn't designed to be recursive (though I don't see a
> different, technical reason for that), followed by finding a (this
> same?) solution/workaround for the original problem. Is that about
> right?
>
>> which makes it clear that attributes aren't recursive, but it's probably
>> worth calling out in the documentation. In fact, I think the current
>> documentation is a bit misleading in that it says "patterns are matched
>> as in .gitignore", which is clearly not the case here.
>
> I was indeed going off of the suggestion to consult the .gitignore
> pattern matching documentation.
>
>> I think just "/.readme-docs/**" should be sufficient for your case. You
>> could also probably write "*" inside ".readme-docs/.gitattributes",
>> which may be simpler (you don't need "**" there because patterns without
>> a slash are just matched directly against the basename).
>
> Wouldn't that make the "*" inside ".readme-docs/.gitattributes",
> technically recursive when "*" matches a directory? It's always seemed
> to me that both were necessary to explicitly match things in a
> directory and its subdirectories (example, IIRC: "git ls-files --
> .gitattributes" vs "git ls-files -- .gitattributes
> **/.gitattributes"). Maybe that example is peculiar in that its a
> dotfile and can't have a wildcard before the dot?
>
> I guess my takeaway is that it would be _good_ if the gitattributes
> documentation contained the caveat about not matching directories
> recursively, but _great_ if gitattributes and gitignore (and whatever
> else there is) were consistent.
>
> At any rate, thanks for the great, quick help!
>
> -Dakota

  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-20  3:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-20  1:49 .gitattributes override behavior (possible bug, or documentation bug) Dakota Hawkins
2018-03-20  2:34 ` Jeff King
2018-03-20  3:10   ` Dakota Hawkins
2018-03-20  3:17     ` Dakota Hawkins [this message]
2018-03-20  4:12       ` Jeff King
2018-03-20  4:04     ` Jeff King
2018-03-20  4:14       ` [PATCH] doc/gitattributes: mention non-recursive behavior Jeff King
2018-03-20  4:28         ` Dakota Hawkins
2018-03-20 16:41         ` Duy Nguyen
2018-03-21  6:50           ` Jeff King
2018-03-21 16:16             ` Duy Nguyen
2018-03-23  9:12               ` Jeff King
2018-03-20  4:25       ` .gitattributes override behavior (possible bug, or documentation bug) Dakota Hawkins
2018-03-20  4:40         ` Jeff King
2018-03-20  4:49           ` Dakota Hawkins
2018-03-20 16:28           ` Duy Nguyen
2018-03-21  3:22             ` Dakota Hawkins
2018-03-21  6:52               ` Jeff King
2018-03-21  7:36                 ` Dakota Hawkins
2018-03-21  7:44                   ` Dakota Hawkins
2018-03-21  7:50                   ` Jeff King
2018-03-21  8:35                     ` Dakota Hawkins
2018-03-21  8:36                       ` Jeff King
2018-03-21 16:18                   ` Junio C Hamano
2018-03-21 16:07               ` Duy Nguyen
2018-03-20  3:33   ` Junio C Hamano
2018-03-20  3:40     ` Dakota Hawkins
2018-03-20  3:45     ` Jeff King

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAHnyXxR+03P8vG02dSuDCnRG0vsbOEWWsNBsKVsedgpkPNu=fQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=dakota@dakotahawkins.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).