From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2F11F453 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 06:06:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727026AbeJTOM4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:12:56 -0400 Received: from mail-it1-f194.google.com ([209.85.166.194]:54584 "EHLO mail-it1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726261AbeJTOM4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:12:56 -0400 Received: by mail-it1-f194.google.com with SMTP id l191-v6so6675165ita.4 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 23:03:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RGba9m9z1tjDsoqMhopO2a/9BV/TNTeDbbZ6bFWr/8U=; b=l3/PT+9m91jUX2IzEsmlROsYK7yFBq/Ow9LI6oNJj2vayeV+0SVtho0bSGhsxofKt5 ZbjM2Yqkt8CyTrENZU6riaUlW1gk0usHKkBJ+RZY/DMgQp0pPe7qYdIZpUyuXgB7M/TI sv02YSMvPF3wK3kC8kXfIpTDTFv6SdqXLGTyz60R5842ZkBzqd64zQPvngMn2f8j2cZT WhHTWP9PQyYNza/fd/vr94AfEngTiQfVxFB8AiBZi/WcLa1dGIiazrdmm2LsE9zTiK/C anrj27cMkWC3OxZkhmpFj6Y7fA3fn7/Qc8yu4NFpohU68dZpQT22ZgCDgw3/sZl4qvnH V/LQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RGba9m9z1tjDsoqMhopO2a/9BV/TNTeDbbZ6bFWr/8U=; b=YRMXQYezLx6+ZwYvPMkOKqACK+7YfjeyVstHBBQueycsdbC7UDnUKMS3BZFCIy89dE PoNeEz9G/p197neHmR/xMmgmjIMwgLlGfMOlvrDHVZPlXNBWvtMpotfxBp+ndgEOLS76 afFqdXso2RKv7Llc94JUrFlnPceagAOEmkBJUIKjXNQH9lR5p3d8a0c6JkSS+eHHeQkC 90TfFBRFd0HEsSSY5q78eMq16DPf3hYKvUUl9GllliwMYQUIcklAu8eNA4I2hcTOGg8i Sk7AbdtHNR7X/mMu+w7d2MfYcruCuwjeEfwrDCI3x+6ma4WQWQmJ7UsYTAQbRGOZcipo k2CQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfogVZ4poOK+LlhSuKax7t/sfHeTwEBLrtKYTYcMRvdp5KzgspcSt km6QXEF1FJ1amuiCaYm91Pmnc8Oj5IsgplwHUfyFNQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV63BydPW7H/zpDY0HkYB/Fx4ez+ub8R/H1JpP9I4SDiW1rOWntVIScEBn7Oc3Fml/61NkZlRY2vX0UxRLBChXh0= X-Received: by 2002:a02:a613:: with SMTP id c19-v6mr15492120jam.30.1540015419388; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 23:03:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181020052624.GA31433@duynguyen.home> In-Reply-To: From: Duy Nguyen Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 08:03:13 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [BUG] gitignore documentation inconsistent with actual behaviour To: dana geier Cc: Git Mailing List , =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , Junio C Hamano , jamslam@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 7:53 AM dana wrote: > > On 20 Oct 2018, at 00:26, Duy Nguyen wrote: > >Which way should we go? I'm leaning towards the second one... > > Not sure how much my opinion is worth, but the second option does feel more > friendly (from a usage perspective) as well as more straight-forward (from a > re-implementation perspective). Yeah. And not having to describe all the corner cases is a plus. Too many corner cases are a sign of bad implementation anyway. I'll wait some more time for the others to speak up before I cook a proper patch. > There's a third option too, though, right? The 'rsync' behaviour mentioned > earlier? It wouldn't matter either way in any of the examples i listed, but is > there ever a conceivable use case for something like `foo**bar`, where the `**` > matches across slashes? (I can't think of any reason i'd need that personally, > but then again i don't understand why these people are using `**` the way they > are in the first place.) foo**bar would match foobar as well as foo/bar, foo/x/bar and foo/x/y/bar... Its behavior is error prone in my opinion. There's also some concerns in early iterations of this "**" support that we would need to revisit if we want 'rsync' behavior. I'm not very excited about doing that. -- Duy