Re: [PATCH v2] wt-status: Show ignored files in untracked dirs

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 27, 2012, 05:08 UTC
Message-ID: <7va9t0m69o.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20121227034859.GA20817@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

> IOW, given:
>
>   git init
>   mkdir untracked ignored
>   >untracked/file
>   >ignored/file
>   echo ignored >.git/info/exclude
>
> I would expect:
>
>   $ git status --short --ignored --untracked=normal
>   ?? untracked/
>   !! ignored/

Sensible.

>   $ git status --short --ignored --untracked=all
>   ?? untracked/file
>   !! ignored/file

Again sensible; OK, --untracked=all is what I was missing.

Show 9 quoted lines

> I do not know if anybody cares about the distinction, but optionally we
> could give --ignored its own selector, like:
>
>   $ git status --short --ignored=all --untracked=normal
>   ?? untracked/
>   !! ignored/file
>
> where obviously it would default to "none" (whereas untracked defaults
> to "normal").

We could just say the selector for the ignored implicitly follows what is given for --untracked, if we don't care.

Show 17 quoted lines

> But the behavior with Antoine's patch is:
>
>   $ git status --short --ignored --untracked=normal
>   ?? untracked/
>   !! ignored
>
>   $ git status --short --ignored --untracked=all
>   ?? untracked/file
>   !! ignored
>
> which seems wrong to me for two reasons:
>
>   1. It does not recurse for ignored but untracked entries. Neither does
>      the current code, but I think it should.
>
>   2. It loses the trailing slash from the ignored directory in both
>      cases (which is printed by the current code).

Nicely analysed. Perhaps we would want new test pieces to define the behaviour we want to see first?