Re: check-attr doesn't respect recursive definitions

Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Jan Larres wrote: >> I would expect the last command to also report 'set'. I've also tried >> other patterns like 'foo/' and 'foo*', but it didn't make any >> difference. > >

Re: check-attr doesn't respect recursive definitions

Thanks for the clarifications. Just a quick comment about the summary: Jeff King wrote: > Yeah, I had the same thought. So you would have to either: > > 1. Hook the feature into git-archive, which knows about how it > recurses, and can report the correct set of paths. > > or > > 2. Tell

check-attr doesn't respect recursive definitions

Hi, I am trying to write a custom archiving script that checks the export-ignore attribute to know which files from an ls-files output it should skip. Through this I noticed that for files in directories for which the export-ignore (or any other) attribute is set, check-attr still reports 'unspeci