On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:12 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 16 2018, Jeff King wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 01:01:50PM +0000, Per Lundberg wrote: > > > >> Sorry if this question has been asked before; I skimmed through the list > >> archives and the FAQ but couldn't immediately find it - please point me > >> in the right direction if it has indeed been discussed before. > > > > It is a frequently asked question, but it doesn't seem to be in any FAQ > > that I could find. The behavior you're seeing is intended. See this > > message (and the rest of the thread) for discussion: > > > > https://public-inbox.org/git/7viq39avay.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > >> So my question is: is this by design or should this be considered a bug > >> in git? Of course, it depends largely on what .gitignore is being used > >> for - if we are talking about files which can easily be regenerated > >> (build artifacts, node_modules folders etc.) I can totally understand > >> the current behavior, but when dealing with more sensitive & important > >> content it's a bit inconvenient. > > > > Basically: yes. It would be nice to have that "do not track this, but do > > not trash it either" state for a file, but Git does not currently > > support that. > > There's some patches in that thread that could be picked up by someone > interested. I think the approach mentioned by Matthieu Moy here makes > the most sense: > https://public-inbox.org/git/vpqd3t9656k.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > I don't think the rationale mentioned by Junio in > https://public-inbox.org/git/7v4oepaup7.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ is > very convincing. Just fyi I also have some wip changes that add the forth "precious" class in addition to tracked, untracked and ignored [1]. If someone has time it could be another option to pick up. [1] https://gitlab.com/pclouds/git/commit/0e7f7afa1879b055369ebd3f1224311c43c8a32b -- Duy
