Re: "git check-attr" lists macros as being "set" -- feature or bug?

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> I don't know the original rationale, but it seems like the only sane
> behavior to me.

I know the original rationale, which was "we didn't see any need to single
out macros at all, and the code does what was the most straightforward
from the point of view of the implementation". If the resulting behaviour
ended up to be also sane, that would just mean that the implementation was
good ;-).

I agree that showing the macros as set/unset just like elemental
attributes is the only sane thing to do.  Majority of end users do not
care about how some attributes are macros (to cause other attributes to be
set or unset), would set "binary" to their JPEG files, and would expect
the check-attr to say "binary is set for this path", without having to
know that "binary" affects "diff" and "text".

When we say "check-attr tells you if the named attribute is set", do we
say "but macros cannot be examined this way" in the documentation?  If
not, I do not think we need any cluttering update.

It is a separate issue if macros should also be listed as the new feature
that lists all attributes given to a path. I tend to think the macro
attributes as well as the other attributes they set should all be shown.