Re: Change in .gitignore handling: intended or bug?

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 10, 2016, 00:59 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq60wvf8qm.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqd1r3f9rc.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> A bit off topic, but these two paragraphs may need rephrasing, I don't
>> really understand what it's trying to say
>>
>>  - If the pattern does not contain a slash '/', Git treats it as
>>    a shell glob pattern and checks for a match against the
>>    pathname relative to the location of the `.gitignore` file
>>    (relative to the toplevel of the work tree if not from a
>>    `.gitignore` file).
>>
>> Not sure why "relative to the location of .gitignore file" matters. We
>> basically just take `basename $path` out and try to match it.
>
> That is because the documentation was written with ...
> matches, even though '*.c' does not match 'd/hello.c' in the shell
> glob sense,...

Sorry, this does not make much sense, as d/e/hello.c would still match '*.c' in d/.gitignore. So it is a straight-forward match against the basename, and there is nothing relative to the location of .gitignore. If anything, relative to where the pattern is found should be relevant to a pattern _with_ slash in it.

I should have been more careful and thought things through, but as this was an "off topic" comment, I didn't. Sorry about that.

In any case, back to "on topic" part again; I couldn't come up with a better rewrite using named rules (partly because you need to clearly define each rule before referring them, and some of the rules are temporary workarounds for the 2.8 regression that will hopefully disappear in near future). I think you understand the bug and the limitation of the current code a lot better than I do, so if you can please send a final version of the documentation update in the coming 18 hours (I have an option of using what is already queued on 'pu' as a fall-back-good-enough version but I want to keep the last-resort option as that--if I know a potential source of a better version, I'd choose to ask first ;-).

Thanks.