Re: .gitignore Bug Report on the behavior of *

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 20:03, Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Samstag, 25. September 2010, Seth Robertson wrote:
>> # Properly shows X and B/XX as untracked, as I expected
>> echo X > X; echo XX > B/XX; git status
>>
>> # I expected B/XX to show up as untracked
>> rm -f .gitignore B/.gitignore
>> echo '*' > .gitignore; echo '!*' > B/.gitignore; git status
>
> You should update your expectations to match what you got. ;-)
>
> To show why your expectations are wrong, consider a *huge* and *deep*
> directory with thousands and thousands of subdirectories, call it "usr", that
> should be ignored. The .gitignore at the top-level would just say:
>
> Â/usr
>
> Do you really expect git to walk down this ignored directory, just to make
> double-sure that really, really down there does nowhere exist a .gitignore
> that says "oh, wait, don't ignore *this* file"?

That wouldn't be so expensive if the expectation that the .gitignore
in /usr would only be considered if it had already been commited. Then
we'd just have to check if we have a tree for /usr, and whether
there's a gitignore there.

But doing this in the top-level .gitignore if possible is the best
solution.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]