Re: Tracking OpenOffice files/other compressed files with Git
- From
Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
- Date
- Sep 9, 2008, 11:22 UTC
- Message-ID
- <48C65C7E.3030305@viscovery.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <48C658DE.3070001@gmail.com>
Sergio Callegari schrieb:
Show 5 quoted lines
> But in any case it would be preferable to smudge on checkout since > uncompressed OO files can be quite huge. > Also to have uncompressed OO files in the worktree means that if you > ever need to send one as an attachment to somebody you need to reopen > and resave it before making the attachment, which is a bit uncomfortable!
True. Choose your poison.
Show 12 quoted lines
>> A file that you have just 'git add'ed must not show up as dirty even >> if it >> was processed by a "clean" filter. If it does, then this indicates a bug >> in git, and not that a corresponding "smudge" filter is missing or >> misbehaves. Yes, I have observed this with my own "clean" filter some >> time >> ago, but I have not yet tried hard enough to find a reproducible test >> case. >> >> > But am I correct in saying that it will show dirty if you clean and then > smudge in a non symmetric way?
No.
The "smudge" filter kicks in only if the file in the worktree must be replaced, for example, due to 'git checkout'. After the filter has completed, the stat information of the smudged version is stored in the index, and so the file does not appear as dirty. (Again, if you observe something else, then git must be fixed, IMO.)
-- Hannes