From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC] extending git-ls-files --exclude. Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:27:36 -0700 Message-ID: <7vll3uk4w7.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20050721202309.8216.19338.stgit@h164.c77.b0.tor.eicat.ca> <7v3bq71rmb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050722192424.GB8556@mars.ravnborg.org> <7vy87yr2xh.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050722205948.GE11916@pasky.ji.cz> <7vd5p73jlu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vk6jelkty.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Catalin Marinas , Petr Baudis , git@vger.kernel.org, Marco Costalba X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 25 22:31:22 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dx9ax-0005tY-Eg for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:30:39 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261545AbVGYUaJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:30:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261514AbVGYU2I (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:28:08 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao11.cox.net ([68.230.241.28]:7409 "EHLO fed1rmmtao11.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261503AbVGYU1i (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:27:38 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao11.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050725202733.QPEZ12158.fed1rmmtao11.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:27:33 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:09:26 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> I personally do not have preference either way, but am slightly >> biased towards the "cumulative" behaviour the patch attempts to >> implement, which was what Pasky said he wanted to have. > > I think that makes sense. > > Imagine, for example, that you have separate subdirectory structures for > Documentation and for source - maybe you'd put the "*.o" rule in the > source directory, and a "*.1" rule in the Docs subdirectory. I imagined it, but it appears to me that this is a bad example. My understanding of what Catalin and the proposed patch disagrees is whether the patterns in .gitignore at the top level should govern files under ppc/ and mozilla-sha1/ subdirectories; Catalin thinks they should not. What I meant by "cumulative" (now I realize I might have misunderstood what Pasky wanted to mean by that word, though) was not just .gitignore in subdirectory being added, but the effect of patterns being added so far, either from the command line or by parent directories, last while in the deeper directories.