Re: Change in .gitignore handling: intended or bug?

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

 



On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In any case, back to "on topic" part again; I couldn't come up with
> a better rewrite using named rules (partly because you need to
> clearly define each rule before referring them, and some of the
> rules are temporary workarounds for the 2.8 regression that will
> hopefully disappear in near future).  I think you understand the bug
> and the limitation of the current code a lot better than I do, so if
> you can please send a final version of the documentation update in
> the coming 18 hours (I have an option of using what is already
> queued on 'pu' as a fall-back-good-enough version but I want to keep
> the last-resort option as that--if I know a potential source of a
> better version, I'd choose to ask first ;-).

I'm never good with words, especially in a rush. Let's merge yours.
I'll fix the bug and update gitignore.txt in one go.
-- 
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



[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]