Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> 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. -- 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