threads / bug / 51213

[bug?] clean: Demonstrate failure when used with paths

Subject: [bug?] clean: Demonstrate failure when used with paths

## tl;dr

3 messages between May 31, 2019 and Jun 3, 2019.

replies: 2people: 2as markdown or json

Rafael Ascensão· May 31, 2019, 18:36 UTC · lore
---

Yesterday on #git, an user reported the following behaviour of git clean:

    $ git init
    $ mkdir foo
    $ touch a.txt b.txt bar.txt foo/qux.txt
    $ git clean -f bar.txt foo/qux.txt
    Removing bar.txt
Where the behaviour they expected would be:
    $ git clean -f bar.txt foo/qux.txt
    Removing bar.txt
    Removing foo/qux.txt
Sending this "patch" as an excuse to not forget this bug report.
 t/t7300-clean.sh | 14 ++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/t/t7300-clean.sh b/t/t7300-clean.sh
index 7b36954d63..eecbd98906 100755
--- a/t/t7300-clean.sh
+++ b/t/t7300-clean.sh
@@ -92,6 +92,20 @@ test_expect_success 'git clean src/ src/' '
 
 '
 
+test_expect_failure 'git clean a.out docs/manual.tmp' '
+	mkdir -p build docs &&
+	touch a.out b.out docs/manual.txt docs/manual.tmp &&
+	git clean a.out docs/manual.tmp &&
+	test -f Makefile &&
+	test -f README &&
+	test ! -f a.out &&
+	test -f b.out &&
+	test -f docs/manual.txt &&
+	test ! -f docs/manual.tmp &&
+	test -f src/part2.c &&
+	test -f src/part1.c
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'git clean with prefix' '
 
 	mkdir -p build docs src/test &&

-- 
2.21.0
Elijah Newren· Jun 3, 2019, 20:32 UTC · re: Rafael Ascensão · lore

Re: [bug?] clean: Demonstrate failure when used with paths

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:58 PM Rafael Ascensão <rafa.almas@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
>
> I missed this RFC series which fixes this and others issues:
> https://public-inbox.org/git/20180405173446.32372-1-newren@gmail.com
>
> Cheers,
> Rafael Ascensão

Yeah, I've had cleaning that patch series up on my TODO list for quite some time.

My vague recollection was that Peff pointed out a few things to clean up in my patches, and also highlighted a few extra adjacent issues in the surrounding underlying code...and when I started looking into fixing the additional stuff it was slightly more complex and ugly (and for some reason I didn't decide to just fix up and submit what I had but was trying to fix everything in the area).

Also, briefly looking back at the cover letter and thread overview it looks like no one ever attempted to shed light on the question I asked in my RFC about what correct behavior was for one special case (i.e. whether patches 5 & 6 of that series should be kept or whether they should be dropped and patch 7 should be squashed into earlier patches). Anyone have thoughts on that?

Elijah

← back to recent threads