Re: .gitignore, .gitattributes, .gitmodules, .gitprecious?, .gitacls? etc.

From: Sergio Callegari <scallegari@arces.unibo.it>
Date: Aug 27, 2007, 17:07 UTC
Message-ID: <loom.20070827T185519-641@post.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <86odgtou5p.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz>

David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> 
> Sergio Callegari <scallegari <at> arces.unibo.it> writes:
> 
> > Couldn't all this directory/ownership/permission tracing be easily
> > done by using hooks?  E.g. Having a pre-status and pre-commit hook
> > one could fire up a program/script to collect all the extra info he
> > wants to trace and store it somewhere (typically in some traced
> > file).  The other way round one could have a post-checkout hook and
> > he could arrange it to fire up some program to look into the
> > extra-info file to set up all the meta-data he wants.
> >
> > This would be very flexible and would permit to manage absolutely
> > /any/ kind of the metadata leaving absolute freedom about how to do
> > so.
> >
> > Am I missing something here?
> 
> Merging.
>

Sorry, maybe I am really missing something, since merging does not look to me as an issue.

Why cannot git simply do the merging in the working tree as it normally does, including merging of the traced metadata file generated by the metadata helpers invoked via the hooks? Only, again more hooks are needed and likely a post-merge hook, so that at the end of the merge, the metadata can be applied.

Only, to have things going on smoothly, one should be so wise to assure that the metadata helpers save metadata as nice, sorted text files in order to minimize the burden of manual intervention if there are conflicts in metadata merging.

BTW.  Having a post-checkout hook could also help getting rid of unwanted
empty directories, couldn't it?
 
Sergio