From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Roskin Subject: Re: [PATCH] ls-files: honour per-directory ignore file from higher directories. Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:38:50 -0500 Message-ID: <1139542730.23725.3.camel@dv> References: <1138125570.24415.11.camel@dv> <20060125061140.GA8408@mars.ravnborg.org> <7vmzh1eykq.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sam Ravnborg , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 10 04:39:24 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F7P7w-00064W-FG for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 04:39:20 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751033AbWBJDi7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 22:38:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751034AbWBJDi7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 22:38:59 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]:18050 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751032AbWBJDi7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 22:38:59 -0500 Received: from proski by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1F7P7Z-000505-Ch for git@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:38:57 -0500 Received: from proski by dv.roinet.com with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1F7P7S-00087n-Ut; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:38:50 -0500 To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7vmzh1eykq.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.5.90 (2.5.90-1.1) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hello, Junio! On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 00:16 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > When git-ls-files -o --exclude-per-directory=.gitignore is run > from a subdirectory, it did not read from .gitignore from its > parent directory. Reading from them makes output from these two > commands consistent: You beat me at that. Thank you! With this patch, the simplified version of cg-clean passes the cogito testsuite. That's where the original bug was caught. > * If there are positive feedbacks on this one, I consider it > a safe enough candidate to be included in 1.2.0 release. Yes, it would be nice to see it released. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin