Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Eli Barzilay wrote: > > > Well, using the index this way seems like a kind of a hack anyway, so > > I'm not sure that there is any reason to do this. > > Most git commands do write out the tree they are working with to an > (in-memory or on-disk) index, so using the index this way would make a > warped kind of sense. But I agree that it is ugly. > > > If anything, I'd > > like it if `check-attr' could just use the repository directly instead > > of the index (or a work tree) in a bare repository. > > I think the right thing to do is to put this functionality in a new > ʽgit lsʼ command. Maybe something like this: > > $ git ls --format='%p %a(crlf)' master -- '*.txt' > some/path/foo.txt crlf:input > some/path/bar.txt crlf > some/path/other.txt !crlf > yet/another/path.txt > $ Well, that or make `git check-attr` support reading .gitattributes from repository (from a corresponding tree object). Unfortunately `git check-attr` doesn't have place to put revision... well unless as a parameter: git check-attr [--cached|--tree <tree-ish>] <attr>... [--] <pathname>... -- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html