hoi :) On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 09:26:12AM +0200, Alex Riesen wrote: > Junio C Hamano, Sun, Aug 20, 2006 00:39:20 +0200: > > Martin Waitz <tali@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > This safety measure is quite useful normally, but for files that are > > > explicitly marked as to-be-ignored it should not be neccessary. > > > > > > But all the code that handles .gitignore is only used by ls-files now. > > > Does it make sense to add exclude handling to unpack-trees.c, too? > > > > In principle, I am not opposed to the idea of making read-tree > > take the ignore information into consideration. > > > > But I would suggest you to be _extremely_ careful if you want to > > It should be optional. And off by default, people already have got > scripts depending on this behaviour (well, I have). but having this sort of behaviour optional is bad, I think. Some people will depend on one semantic and others on the other. And then get bite if they want to share their scripts. We have to find _one_ semantic that always works. > > try this. I do not have an example offhand, but I would not be > > surprised at all if there is a valid use case where it is useful > > to have a pattern that matches a tracked file in .gitignore > > file. > > Ignored directory and but some files/subdirectories in it are tracked, > because this is temporary or externally changed data (I have both > examples). but do you have non-tracked files in the ignored directory that you really care about, i.e. which must not be overridden by a tracked file with the same name? -- Martin Waitz
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature