Re: [BUG?] bulk checkin does not respect filters

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

This is intentional in the sense it is not worth worrying about (I personally consider large and binary gunk equivalent and something nobody should care about anything more than 1. what the exact contents it had at each point in history and 2. if it did or did not change between two versions, but definitely not 3. how different these two versions were), and does not deserve the complexity to support filtering and textconv'ing.

If somebody strongly feels about lifting the limitation with a clean patch that does not harm the common case codepaths, patches are welcome, but I am not planning to do it myself ;-)

It is worth documenting this limitation, though.