From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Change in .gitignore handling: intended or bug? Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 16:32:19 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1457057516.1962831.539160698.3C8B30BC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20160304055117.GB26609@ikke.info> <1457071957.2027843.539286050.10CF8D0A@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20160304115634.GC26609@ikke.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Kevin Daudt , Charles Strahan , Git Mailing List To: Duy Nguyen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 09 02:14:15 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1adSha-0004IH-BX for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 02:14:14 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753105AbcCIBN4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 20:13:56 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:64548 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752246AbcCIAcX (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 19:32:23 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A47F4BD4B; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 19:32:21 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=nzzS9NUMXUTEjs8okrxNsIquwkU=; b=xpp0F0 exvyMjpUUmaStONIDrzQwOxMoceNyEp++oCHC4Yr8UPPIsHnlaulmaWTFyOM5nuG q88SpJE0Tm1bAgTlmQ772UM2LR5m9RuGZLNpo1xhPF6C++2YyzTd2/Bg8yvBGbtW Ptc7KOIK2VXZX70fBxuy7EP1eBAvQ9+5Seb44= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Gpu1IaXvnT71/SzhX8zeBTsPTwIYpTOk svTrOrpkrCW83w3P0sYhtrrtCb6Ud+CDuNSyUt11CrG0lMRTulCecvttDQQtxic1 zxsHVXbjs0COsppMLSXCd1UVgO+uRpBNU6ajxjXeM2UJKxN+VqU69YjpwwP1OEbl GN7wSz355hw= Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8184E4BD49; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 19:32:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.1.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E532B4BD48; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 19:32:20 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Duy Nguyen's message of "Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:18:31 +0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 62BFAD34-E58E-11E5-8060-79226BB36C07-77302942!pb-smtp0.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Duy Nguyen writes: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> So what do we want to do for the upcoming release? > > I don't know. Befoire 2.8.0, all three matching cases are broken. With > the current changes on 2.8.0, one case is fixed with the other cases > broken. I guess it can create even more confusion. Yeah documentation > helps a bit. > >> I am OK to leave >> the code as-is for now and describe it as a known bug that is still >> being worked on (as long as it indeed is being worked on, that is), > > I do want to fix it. I don't know how much code is impacted yet (and > how many more bugs I'll be introducing while attempting to fix it). It > may take a few cycles before the fix can be released. Sorry, but I should have been more clear. At this point in the release cycle, I do not think it is an option to pile on more "fixes" to risk destabilizing the end-user experience even more before 2.8.0 final happens. It is between (1) the current code is good enough that with a (temporary) limitation clearly described in the documentation users can work around the implementation deficiency and get a benaviour that is closer than 2.7.2, or (2) the half-way implementation we have does not give enough advancement toward the final goal (i.e. the !dir re-inclusion behaves consistently with the dir that ignores the whole thing underneath, while allowing subpaths ignored with follow-on entries in the same .gitignore file), and we are better off reverting the whole thing to go back to 2.7.2 behaviour, planning to do a better job in the next cycle. I was hoping that (1) would be the case.