First, apologies since I didn't get the in-reply-to correct in my email header. I'm not sure how to do that (using gmail/gsuite). Meant to reply to: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180321075041.GA24701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > Just before the context your patch quotes, we have this in gitignore(5) > already: > > [...]It is not possible to re-include a file if a parent directory > of that file is excluded. Git doesn’t list excluded directories for > performance reasons, so any patterns on contained files have no > effect, no matter where they are defined.[...] > > I can't see how your change to the documentation doesn't just re-state > what we already have documented, which is not to say the docs can't be > improved, but then we should clearly state this in one place, not > re-state it within the span of a few paragraphs. Context: This came up originally because of confusion with .gitattributes patterns, since gitattributes doesn't have the same `foo/` matching behavior. Jeff King was kind enough to prepare a patch for that documentation here: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180320041454.GA15213@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Re-reading the section you quoted again a couple of times you're correct, but somehow that wasn't clear to me despite reading/searching for what I wanted to see several times. While what I wrote may need improvement, I think there are a couple of valid concerns with the way this behavior is documented currently: - Generally: Reading about pattern matching for .gitignore is awkward on its face, since positive matches have negative consequences (in other words `include = !match`). - Specifically: This behavior that is specific to `foo/` matches is documented in the section for `!foo` matches. If you're trying to find the implications of `foo/` you may not have read about `!foo` as carefully. Since this behavior is practically applicable to both pattern formats, and since patterns in the sum of a repo's .gitignore files can get somewhat complicated, I think it would be a good idea to either: - Do this and basically explain the same behavior twice in two pattern format sections, or - Pull the documentation for this behavior out into another section where users would be likely to find and understand it if they're looking into either pattern format Does that make sense? What do you think? Thanks for the feedback, - Dakota
