# Files excluded but not ignored 3 messages from 2013-01-30 to 2013-02-01. Participants: Jason Wenger, Junio C Hamano, Ben Aveling. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/32776 ## Jason Wenger, 2013-01-30 15:34 Subject: Files excluded but not ignored Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/loom.20130130T161911-66%40post.gmane.org ``` I prefer to not add core.* files to my ignore listings because I find it helpful to see them in git status -- It helps me notice and clean them up periodically. Not having them ignored is also good ,because it allows git clean to care of core.* files. The problem is that git add -A, git stash -u, etc, remain interested in the core files. Trying to start up discussion of whether there would be merit to a "half- ignored" state -- Files which are excluded from tracking, but which still show in git status, and which are removed by git clean. Not trying to propose yet how .git/exclude or .gitignore would be formatted or anything like that. Just looking for opinions on whether such a state would be considered by the community as a good thing and merit the added complexity in the code. ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2013-01-30 16:17 Subject: Re: Files excluded but not ignored Message-ID: <7v38ximyr2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7v38ximyr2.fsf%40alter.siamese.dyndns.org In-Reply-To: ``` Jason Wenger writes: > I prefer to not add core.* files to my ignore listings because I find it helpful > to see them in git status -- It helps me notice and clean them up periodically. > Not having them ignored is also good ,because it allows git clean to care of > core.* files. > > The problem is that git add -A, git stash -u, etc, remain interested in the core > files. > > Trying to start up discussion of whether there would be merit to a "half- > ignored" state -- Files which are excluded from tracking, but which still > show in git status, and which are removed by git clean. > > Not trying to propose yet how .git/exclude or .gitignore would be formatted > or anything like that. Just looking for opinions on whether such a state > would be considered by the community as a good thing and merit the added > complexity in the code. I see no merit for "ignored and never to be tracked, but are still shown loudly in the untracked list" myself. Use cases for "ignored and never to be tracked, but not expendable" class were mentioned often in the past, though. ``` ## Ben Aveling, 2013-02-01 23:54 Subject: Re: Files excluded but not ignored Message-ID: <510C55D2.20103@optusnet.com.au> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/510C55D2.20103%40optusnet.com.au In-Reply-To: <7v38ximyr2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> ``` On 31/01/2013 3:17 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jason Wenger writes: > >> Trying to start up discussion of whether there would be merit to a "half- >> ignored" state -- Files which are excluded from tracking, but which still >> show in git status, and which are removed by git clean. > I see no merit for "ignored and never to be tracked, but are still > shown loudly in the untracked list" myself. Use cases for "ignored > and never to be tracked, but not expendable" class were mentioned > often in the past, though. A new state seems over the top. Jason, would adding a parameter to "git status" telling it to ignore all .gitignores give you what you need? Regards, Ben ```