"Dr. Adam Nielsen" <admin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I agree with you. How about we make up the word "intermediate slash" and > explain it in an extra paragraph? I am not sure if that is any better than "in the following, pretend that a slash at the end of a pattern does not exist", which is how the current description avoids repetition and aims for clarity. It probably is worse than than the current one if we need to introduce a new term that is otherwise not useful elsewhere---a new term adds to the cognitive load of readers. >> I also wonder if "in all directories" is clear enough that your >> "all" is limited to below the level the ignore pattern is defined >> for (i.e. "*.1" that appears in "Documentation/.gitignore" does not >> ignore "foo.1" at the top-level of the tree). > > Its mentioned at the start of the page that the pattern is always > relative to the location of the `.gitignore` file. However, I see that > since its said "in all directories" its necessary to restrict it again. > How about > > If the pattern contains no intermediate slash "`/`", > the pattern will match in all directories at or below > the `.gitignore` file, with infinite depth. It is unclear what "with infinite depth" means in this sentence. There is no depth-limit in the exclude mechanism, and I'd prefer not to confuse readers by making a casual mention of "depth" to imply as if there is some depth-based logic. Also, as you defined "intermediate" as a slash that is neither leading nor trailing, the above paragraph says "/foo" matches any filesystem entity whose final path component is 'foo', e.g. a file 'foo' at the current level, a directory 'foo' in subdirectory 'dir' (i.e. 'dir/foo'), etc. I do not think you meant to say that (and this is why I do not like to introduce a new term---even its inventor cannot get it right). >> So I can tell that this patch is trying to address a problem in the >> original that is worth fixing, but I cannot say the result is good. >> At least not yet. >> ... >> Once you write consistently that a path for a directory foo/bar is >> foo/bar, not foo/bar/, then this example would become much easier to >> write and read, I suspect. >> >> An asterisk "`*`" matches anything except a slash. A >> pattern "foo/*", for example, matches "foo/test.json" (a >> regular file), "foo/bar" (a diretory), but it does not match >> "foo/bar/hello.c" (a regular file), as the asterisk in the >> patter does not match "bar/hello.c" which has a slash in it. >> >> perhaps. > > I agree, this is much better. Although I would leave out > >> "as the asterisk in the patter does not match "bar/hello.c" >> which has a slash in it." I happen to think that the part is the more important half of that whole "example". By explaining why it does not match, it enforces "matches anything except a slash" we gave upfront. Thanks. I think we are making progress...
