On 09/23/2011 12:39 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > [...] It > would be a regression if the attributes mechanism is used for auditing > purposes (as we start reading from a tree that is being audited using the > very attributes it brings in), though. I'm confused by this comment. If an auditing system can be subverted by altering .gitattributes, then I can do just as much harm by changing the .gitattributes in one commit and making the "nasty" change in a second. So any rigorous auditing system based on .gitattributes would have to prevent me from committing modifications to .gitattributes, in which case my commit will be rejected anyway. If by "auditing" you mean other less rigorous checks to which exceptions are *allowed*, then it is preferable to add the exception in the same commit as the otherwise-offending content, and therefore it is *required* that the .gitattributes of the new tree be used when checking the contents of that tree. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/ -- 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