Re: ls-files --exclude broken?

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 15, 2010, 23:34 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=FePrE6gpwiaxqDfw0f7Jk=mb-sTe-XR6-sKXM@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimYNtU7sHn4_Vx50evTWDpMK_=XgshU3ZzT+eVw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com> wrote:

> I want cached paths, minus the exclude pattern. Using -c -x \* gives
> the same result.
>
> There is no indication in the man page that -x doesn't apply to -c.

That caught me too.

<snip>

> Bah, what use is that? Minimally ls-files shouldn't accept -x unless
> given either --ignored or --others if that's all it applies to. I
> guess this is my itch to scratch.

I ran into the same thing earlier this week and came up with a patch similar to Nguyen's (though I just restored it closer to what Johannes originally had there), before I discovered that this was an intentional change by Jeff. (And then I tabled it to get back to work on fixing up merge-recursive some more)

I can't say I really understand the changes from b5227d8 and 500348, though; I found (and find) it confusing as well. I did notice that restoring the old behavior didn't work very well with items below the current directory, so it'd take a bit more work than just restoring the original behavior.

Elijah