Re: [RFC] extending git-ls-files --exclude.

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Jul 25, 2005, 19:58 UTC
Message-ID: <7vk6jelkty.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <tnxmzobutsf.fsf@arm.com>

Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com> writes:

> I think it would make more sense for the exclude-per-directory
> patterns to be local to that directory only, without recursively
> preserving them for subdirectories.

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.

    Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:59:48 +0200
    From: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
    Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Tell vim the textwidth is 75.
    Message-ID: <20050722205948.GE11916@pasky.ji.cz>

    > *3* .gitignore in the cwd is used in Cogito, if I am not
    > mistaken.

    Yes. There were several discussions about this in the past, with no
    clear outcome, IIRC. I would prefer:

      ~/.git/ignore per-user
      /.git/ignore per-repository
      .gitignore per-directory (cummulative with parent directories)

Show 5 quoted lines

>> An exclude pattern is of the following format:
> [...]
>
> That's fine. Actually, the Porcelain would care much about it since it
> gets the information already filtered by git.

Your saying "fine" is a relief. This change aims at helping Porcelain people by making it less likely for Porcelain to need its own filtering. As you say, if ls-files filters more than the Porcelain wants, that's a bigger problem.

Show 9 quoted lines

>>     $ cat Documentation/.gitignore
>>     # ignore generated html files,
>>     # except foo.html which is maintained by hand
>>     !foo.html
>>     *.html
>
> Wouldn't it be clearer to have the general rules first (*.html),
> overridden by the more specific ones (!foo.html)? Just my opinion, I
> don't know what others think.

I do not know, either, but I do know it is consistent with the "first match determines fate" rule and cleaner to implement.