From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) 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,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E482B1F45E for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:41:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729606AbgBQUlV (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:41:21 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:64915 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727300AbgBQUlU (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:41:20 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30255E892; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:41:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=5NR86omsZOYtIyski22WPfUGX8U=; b=Aj8Xhn 9W29taum5z2yyACO4GjIiBHRWE0YSMri5dNJjzdcdAYoO43Rio2nQoZ+vobtnAiJ bAFm6oQ185sM/NjGhq8sbWAX/pO8ZQOLHoriTJcsxpWOQKR+cxU9yEpoxpTLCIvc nTO65TCDw9uqQUsqAdWK5hcGAv8OdWxoBt5Bw= 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=gUg0lQNB9oRiGpOgWKRTSgY8vQfoZg29 PpfMvkWMinzVFItADoGwqv4VlpRWrarPp/H5lvCuxiaVm07HXisxnAe1VFAgEFur coxuke83BowRIb8cjTofpqyWKmdL/mtaGwiwki6bNkUoN61nu8XWuuZdij63VbBw FdJ4/51d5Uo= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABF15E891; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:41:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12D0D5E890; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:41:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] check-ignore: fix handling with negated patterns References: Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 12:41:16 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:41:47 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D9193F66-51C5-11EA-8244-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Elijah Newren writes: >> I suspect that the above distorts history. IIRC, it was meant as a >> tool to see which exact pattern in the exclude sequence had the >> final say for the given needle, written primarily as a debugging >> aid. In that context, "This rule has the final say", whether the >> rule is a negative or positive, still means something. > > I can reword it; how does the following sound? > > check-ignore claims that it reports whether each path it is given is > excluded. However, it fails to do so because it did not account for > negated patterns. I am not sure about "claims" part. Isn't it more like "check-ignore has been the tool that reports the rule that has final say on each of the paths it is given, but that is not very useful when the user wants to see if the path is excluded (e.g. the rule with the final say may be negative). Let's change the behaviour so that it reports if the path is excluded or not"? As I said, I tend to agree with the direction your patch wants to go (iow, we probably are better off changing the behaviour"); the question is if we want a transition plan and how extensive it needs be if we do.