On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 02:41:25AM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 07:38:58AM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 6:44 AM, brian m. carlson > > <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think there's still a bug in the code here. If you do > > > > > > git init > > > mkdir -p base/a/ > > > printf 'base/a/\n!base/a/b.txt\n' >.gitignore > > > > Here we have the ignore rule "base/a/", but gitignore.txt, section > > NOTES mentions this > > > > - The rules to exclude the parent directory must not end with a > > trailing slash. > > The text here says, "To re-include files or directories when their > parent directory is excluded, the following conditions must be met". In > other words, the text implies that it's required for re-inclusion to > work, not exclusion. > > > > git add .gitignore > > > git commit -m 'Add .gitignore' > > > >base/a/b.txt > > > git add base/a/b.txt > > > git commit -m 'Add base/a/b.txt' > > > >base/a/c.txt > > > git status --porcelain > > > > > > git status outputs base/a/c.txt as unknown, when it should be ignored. > > > We saw this in a repository at $DAYJOB. > > > > If I delete that trailing slash, c.txt is ignored. So it's known > > limitation. I think we can make trailing slash case work too, but if I > > remember correctly it would involve a lot more changes, so I didn't do > > it (there are other conditions to follow anyway to make it work). > > The case I'm seeing is that b.txt was already checked into the > repository before being re-added, and c.txt was not. So it didn't > affect us that b.txt was ignored (as it was already in the repo), but > c.txt not being ignored broke a whole bunch of scripts that checked that > the repository was clean, simply because we upgraded Git. > > I think regardless of whether b.txt is re-included, c.txt should be > ignored. If it isn't possible to re-include b.txt, that's fine, since > that isn't a regression, but ignored files should remain ignored. Thanks for clarification. I looked at this the wrong way. I agree it is a regression. The following should fix it. It looks correct (and does fix your test case), but I will have to look harder over the weekend before sending a proper patch. -- 8< -- diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c index d2a8f06..7934e87 100644 --- a/dir.c +++ b/dir.c @@ -1008,6 +1008,7 @@ static struct exclude *last_exclude_matching_from_list(const char *pathname, if (exc && !(exc->flags & EXC_FLAG_NEGATIVE) && !(exc->flags & EXC_FLAG_NODIR) && + !(exc->flags & EXC_FLAG_MUSTBEDIR) && matched_negative_path) exc = NULL; return exc; -- 8< -- -- Duy -- 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