From: Dakota Hawkins <email@example.com> To: Duy Nguyen <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Jeff King <email@example.com>, Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Git <email@example.com> Subject: Re: .gitattributes override behavior (possible bug, or documentation bug) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:22:02 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAHnyXxRsqR3A0FpHJwnfOWo29WNx05qWSXfxvmwPv1TUdqm0aQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8BP+ov0jeHp6QZoi=etPDQX5qEFqEfktyA-U-ffUE92vA@mail.gmail.com> Thinking about this a little more, I'm now attracted to the idea that its .gitignore that's weird. As I understand it, .gitignore stops recursion when there's a directory match (`somedir/`) but also explicitly allows nested .gitnore file _as well as_ exclusion (`!*.txt`). So, in the following (contrived) example, the user doesn't get what they want: repo/ |- .git/ |- .gitignore # /ignore-most/ |- ignore-most/ | |- .gitignore # !*.txt | |- please_ignore.png | |- dont_ignore_me.txt `repo/ignore-most/dont_ignore_me.txt` is still ignored, despite what seems like the obvious intention of the user. Maybe a unified "best-practices" would first-and-foremost recommend against matching directories at all (makes sense, git doesn't manage directories). In the above example, changing `/ignore-most/` to `/ignore-most/*` has the "desired" effect. What do you think? On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Duy Nguyen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Jeff King <email@example.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:25:27AM -0400, Dakota Hawkins wrote: >> >>> > Right. The technical reason is mostly "that is not how it was designed, >>> > and it would possibly break some corner cases if we switched it now". >>> >>> I'm just spitballing here, but do you guys think there's any subset of >>> the combined .gitignore and .gitattributes matching functionality that >>> could at least serve as a good "best-practices, going forward" >>> (because of consistency) for both? I will say every time I do this for >>> a new repo and have to do something even slightly complicated or >>> different from what I've done before with .gitattributes/.gitignore >>> that it takes me a long-ish time to figure it out. It's like I'm >>> vaguely aware of pitfalls I've encountered in the past in certain >>> areas but don't remember exactly what they are, so I consult the docs, >>> which are (in sum) confusing and lead to more time spent >>> trying/failing/trying/works/fails-later/etc. >>> >>> One "this subset of rules will work for both this way" would be > > You know, you (Dakota) could implement the new "exclude" attribute in > .gitattributes and ignore .gitignore files completely. That makes it > works "for both" ;-) The effort is probably not small though. > >>> awesome even if the matching capabilities are technically divergent, >>> but on the other hand that might paint both into a corner in terms of >>> functionality. >> >> As far as I know, they should be the same with the exception of this >> recursion, and the negative-pattern thing. But I'm cc-ing Duy, who is >> the resident expert on ignore and attributes matching (whether he wants >> to be or not ;) ). > > Ha ha ha. > >> I wouldn't be surprised if there's something I don't know about. > > The only thing from the top of my head is what made me fail to unify > the implementation of the two. It's basically different order of > evaluation  when your patterns are spread out in multiple files. I > think it makes gitattr and gitignore behavior different too (but I > didn't try to verify). > > Apart from that, the two should behave the same way besides the > exceptions you pointed out. > >  https://public-inbox.org/git/%3CCACsJy8B8kYU7bkD8SiK354z4u=sY3hHbe4JVwNT_1pxod1cqUw@mail.gmail.com%3E/ > >> So I think the "recommended subset" is basically "everything but these >> few constructs". We just need to document them. ;) >> >> I probably should cc'd Duy on the documentation patch, too: >> >> https://public-inbox.org/git/20180320041454.GA15213@sigill.intra.peff.net/ >> >> -Peff > -- > Duy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-21 3:22 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-03-20 1:49 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 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 [this message] 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=CAHnyXxRsqR3A0FpHJwnfOWo29WNx05qWSXfxvmwPv1TUdqm0aQ@mail.gmail.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: .gitattributes override behavior (possible bug, or documentation bug)' \ /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).