Hi, jameson.miller81@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > This patch series is the second part of [1], which was split into 2 > parts. The first part, added an optimization in the directory listing > logic to not scan the contents of ignored directories and was merged > to master with commit 5aaa7fd3. This patch series includes the second > part to expose additional arguments to the --ignored option on the > status command. Thanks. > This patch series teaches the status command more options to control > which ignored files are reported independently of the which untracked [...] > Our application (Visual Studio) has a specific set of requirements > about how it wants untracked / ignored files reported by git status. [...] > The reason for controlling these behaviors separately is that there > can be a significant performance impact to scanning the contents of [....] > As a more concrete example, on Windows, Visual Studio creates a bin/ > and obj/ directory inside of the project where it writes all .obj and [...] I see this information is also in patch 1/6. That's a very good thing, since that makes performance numbers involved more concrete about which patch brings them about and it becomes part of permanent history that way --- thanks. But it took me a while to notice, and before then, I was trying to read through the cover letter to get an overview of which patches I am supposed to look at. For next time, could the cover letter say something like "See patches 1 and 2 for more details about the motivation" instead of repeating the commit message content? That would save reviewers some time. Thanks, Jonathan
