From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Haggerty Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] diff_index: honor in-index, not working-tree, .gitattributes Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:21:55 +0200 Message-ID: <4E7C5DC3.8030409@alum.mit.edu> References: <1316727861-90460-1-git-send-email-jaysoffian@gmail.com> <1316727861-90460-2-git-send-email-jaysoffian@gmail.com> <7v8vpgxkvb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jay Soffian , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Jakub Narebski To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Sep 23 12:22:12 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R72tY-00026J-97 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:22:12 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752904Ab1IWKWI (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:22:08 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:58700 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752147Ab1IWKWF (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:22:05 -0400 X-Envelope-From: mhagger@alum.mit.edu Received: from [192.168.100.152] (ssh.berlin.jpk.com [212.222.128.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id p8NALtbA026308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:21:55 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.13 In-Reply-To: <7v8vpgxkvb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 09/23/2011 12:39 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > [...] It > would be a regression if the attributes mechanism is used for auditing > purposes (as we start reading from a tree that is being audited using the > very attributes it brings in), though. I'm confused by this comment. If an auditing system can be subverted by altering .gitattributes, then I can do just as much harm by changing the .gitattributes in one commit and making the "nasty" change in a second. So any rigorous auditing system based on .gitattributes would have to prevent me from committing modifications to .gitattributes, in which case my commit will be rejected anyway. If by "auditing" you mean other less rigorous checks to which exceptions are *allowed*, then it is preferable to add the exception in the same commit as the otherwise-offending content, and therefore it is *required* that the .gitattributes of the new tree be used when checking the contents of that tree. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/