From: Petr Baudis Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:57:07 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC] extending git-ls-files --exclude. Message-ID: <20050728155707.GB17952@pasky.ji.cz> In-Reply-To: <7vll3uk4w7.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Dear diary, on Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:27:36PM CEST, I got a letter where Junio C Hamano told me that... > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > >> I personally do not have preference either way, but am slightly > >> biased towards the "cumulative" behaviour the patch attempts to > >> implement, which was what Pasky said he wanted to have. > > > > I think that makes sense. > > > > Imagine, for example, that you have separate subdirectory structures for > > Documentation and for source - maybe you'd put the "*.o" rule in the > > source directory, and a "*.1" rule in the Docs subdirectory. > > I imagined it, but it appears to me that this is a bad example. > My understanding of what Catalin and the proposed patch > disagrees is whether the patterns in .gitignore at the top level > should govern files under ppc/ and mozilla-sha1/ subdirectories; > Catalin thinks they should not. They should. If you don't want them take effect in most of the directories, you would add them as ./pattern in the parent directory, while if you want them to take effect in most of the directories, you would exclude them in the ones you don't want the pattern to take effect in (if you accept my proposal for ! semantics change). > What I meant by "cumulative" (now I realize I might have > misunderstood what Pasky wanted to mean by that word, though) > was not just .gitignore in subdirectory being added, but the > effect of patterns being added so far, either from the command > line or by parent directories, last while in the deeper > directories. Yes, that's what I meant. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching someone. -- Alan Cox