2011/7/30 Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> > True, it is *assume-unchanged*, not ignore-changes bit; though the latter > would be also possible to implement, I think... but having some file not > changing and marking it as such for better performance is saner use case > than tracking some file but not really tracking it. If you just want to ignore some files (or paths), then adding --exclude option to diff machinery may be a better option. --assume-unchanged is too low-level, and not really convenient to use. > > No code reference, sorry, because I'm just parrotting what I've read > > elsewhere on the list, for example, > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/146082/focus=146353 > > Well, there is hint that there might be problems, but not really says > that they are, and where (if one is lying about assume unchanged by changing > assume-unchanged file). There were problems in the past. See aecda37 (do not overwrite files marked "assume unchanged" - 2010-05-01) The only place that relies on checking files uptodate (which can be faked by assume-unchanged bit) before overwriting them is unpack-trees.c, verify_update_1(). With that fix in place, I think assume-unchanged bit is safe now. However, as long as we don't explicitly state that we will not carelessly overwrite assume-unchanged files, there are still chances that some optimizations in future may make it dangerous again. -- Duy -- 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