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 3A2B11F45E for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:05:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729204AbgBQSFC (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:05:02 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:52318 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726707AbgBQSFC (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:05:02 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105825420B; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:05:00 -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=ZIMinWWBBO5GStrTG5PCmw+3IbM=; b=OshHDt sTkfj9WPiJnP4brptQ9pnGaKzrpSOrk2860SyaqYAKeNVx5mqFevT03tChuEpAmU hfSTKWTpBMT09M5DpQz6DA2XaocbYGSOfQGvsfnYK9YtOQUdeYWRblPegPKwWHKU fhF5DSy4qqM/VLZjVmcB4vBjLdd18uPR9mNOA= 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=sbYfbe8Xavs7VZTzJBsFYDQe95yAEy+b Y+3F2hw6W9tvss7VUBQ4aSD4EaPfdamUSEd92cYKhm33Ip0w2yowXqYH3qYSkR1E DbTtoLR3ooKpzrpc74vvpXcN6UPdsnmSyPamGvk6uppYm86giCeSdLIvRJ9kYjmL yWHWl/BENFo= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D5C54209; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:05:00 -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-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F79B54208; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:04:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Elijah Newren Subject: Re: [PATCH] check-ignore: fix handling with negated patterns References: Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:04:58 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget's message of "Mon, 17 Feb 2020 16:15:06 +0000") 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: 03018060-51B0-11EA-81FE-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" writes: > From: Elijah Newren > > check-ignore was meant to check ignore rules the same way git status and > other commands would, and to report whether a path is excluded. It > failed to do this (and generated a few bug reports), however, because it > did not account for negated patterns. 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. It is just the behavior is _much_ less useful for those who want to know what the final say is, and I tend to agree that we probably are better off changing its output to reflect "so, are we ignoring the path after all? yes/no?" because we are pretty much done with debugging the exclude API implementation.