From: Duy Nguyen <email@example.com> To: Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Dakota Hawkins <email@example.com>, Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Git <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc/gitattributes: mention non-recursive behavior Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:41:52 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CACsJy8CpwtNfp9oQGvECBuWGcwLEKK609iPJVEiXH4cDD6mpEg@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20180320041454.GA15213@sigill.intra.peff.net> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:14 AM, Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:04:11AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> > I guess my takeaway is that it would be _good_ if the gitattributes >> > documentation contained the caveat about not matching directories >> > recursively, but _great_ if gitattributes and gitignore (and whatever >> > else there is) were consistent. >> >> I agree it would be nice if they were consistent (and pathspecs, too). >> But unfortunately at this point there's a maze of backwards >> compatibility to deal with. > > So let's not forget to do the easy half there. Here's a patch. > > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH] doc/gitattributes: mention non-recursive behavior > > The gitattributes documentation claims that the pattern > rules are largely the same as for gitignore. However, the > rules for recursion are different. > > In an ideal world, we would make them the same (if for > nothing else than consistency and simplicity), but that > would create backwards compatibility issues. For some > discussion, see this thread: > > https://email@example.com/ > > But let's at least document the differences instead of > actively misleading the user by claiming that they're the > same. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org> > --- > Documentation/gitattributes.txt | 13 ++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/gitattributes.txt b/Documentation/gitattributes.txt > index d52b254a22..1094fe2b5b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/gitattributes.txt > +++ b/Documentation/gitattributes.txt > @@ -56,9 +56,16 @@ Unspecified:: > > When more than one pattern matches the path, a later line > overrides an earlier line. This overriding is done per > -attribute. The rules how the pattern matches paths are the > -same as in `.gitignore` files; see linkgit:gitignore. > -Unlike `.gitignore`, negative patterns are forbidden. > +attribute. > + > +The rules by which the pattern matches paths are the same as in > +`.gitignore` files (see linkgit:gitignore), with a few exceptions: > + > + - negative patterns are forbidden After 8b1bd02415 (Make !pattern in .gitattributes non-fatal - 2013-03-01) maybe we could use the verb "ignored" too instead of "forbidden" > + > + - patterns that match a directory do not recursively match paths > + inside that directory (so using the trailing-slash `path/` syntax is Technically gitignore does not match paths inside either. It simply ignores the whole dir and not traverse in (which is more of an optimization than anything). That is coincidentally perceived as recursively ignoring. Anyway yes it's good to spell out the differences here for gitattributes. > + pointless in an attributes file; use `path/**` instead) We probably could do this internally too (converting "path/" to "path/**") but we need to deal with corner cases (e.g. "path" without the trailing slash, but is a directory). So yes, suggesting the user to do it instead may be easier. > > When deciding what attributes are assigned to a path, Git > consults `$GIT_DIR/info/attributes` file (which has the highest > -- > 2.17.0.rc0.402.ged0b3fd1ee > -- Duy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-20 16:42 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-03-20 1:49 .gitattributes override behavior (possible bug, or documentation bug) Dakota Hawkins 2018-03-20 2:34 ` Jeff King 2018-03-20 3:10 ` Dakota Hawkins 2018-03-20 3:17 ` Dakota Hawkins 2018-03-20 4:12 ` Jeff King 2018-03-20 4:04 ` Jeff King 2018-03-20 4:14 ` [PATCH] doc/gitattributes: mention non-recursive behavior Jeff King 2018-03-20 4:28 ` Dakota Hawkins 2018-03-20 16:41 ` Duy Nguyen [this message] 2018-03-21 6:50 ` Jeff King 2018-03-21 16:16 ` Duy Nguyen 2018-03-23 9:12 ` Jeff King 2018-03-20 4:25 ` .gitattributes override behavior (possible bug, or documentation bug) Dakota Hawkins 2018-03-20 4:40 ` Jeff King 2018-03-20 4:49 ` Dakota Hawkins 2018-03-20 16:28 ` Duy Nguyen 2018-03-21 3:22 ` Dakota Hawkins 2018-03-21 6:52 ` Jeff King 2018-03-21 7:36 ` Dakota Hawkins 2018-03-21 7:44 ` Dakota Hawkins 2018-03-21 7:50 ` Jeff King 2018-03-21 8:35 ` Dakota Hawkins 2018-03-21 8:36 ` Jeff King 2018-03-21 16:18 ` Junio C Hamano 2018-03-21 16:07 ` Duy Nguyen 2018-03-20 3:33 ` Junio C Hamano 2018-03-20 3:40 ` Dakota Hawkins 2018-03-20 3:45 ` Jeff King
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=CACsJy8CpwtNfp9oQGvECBuWGcwLEKK609iPJVEiXH4cDD6mpEg@mail.gmail.com \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH] doc/gitattributes: mention non-recursive behavior' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).