I think its maybe hard to track all the changes that we have discussed so far. Should I create a new PATCH request including all the changes from the recent mails and then we continue the discussion from there? Best regards, Adam Am Mi., 10. Apr. 2019 um 09:39 Uhr schrieb Dr. Adam Nielsen <admin@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > the pattern is matched against paths in the directory where the > > `.gitignore` file that has the pattern in it is in, and any of > > its subdirectories (recursively). > > > the pattern will match in all directories relative to > > the `.gitignore` file, with infinite depth. > > I could not catch the difference between the meaning of both. > However, I think "paths in the directory" and "directories relative to" > are maybe both ambiguous. > > Since a pattern without a non-trailing slash must always be a file name or a > folder name, and does not have a leading slash, we could maybe just > say it like this: > > the pattern is matched against all files and folders (recursively) > from the location of the `.gitignore` file. > --------- > > > > Unlike a pattern without a slash, a pattern with a > > non-trailing slash is matched against paths immediately in > > the directory the `.gitignore` file the pattern appears in > > is stored in, and does not get used in its subdirectories.. > > I think one can always assume that we talking about the relevant > `.gitignore` file (where the pattern appears in). > > Perhaps this covers it all? > > A pattern with a non-trailing slash is always considered > to begin at the `.gitignore` file location. > > followed by your example > > > For example, the pattern `doc/frotz/` that appears in > > `.gitignore` at the top-level of the project matches > > `doc/frotz` directory (again, seen from the top-level), but > > not `a/doc/frotz`. > > and maybe one more example > > Note that the pattern `doc/frotz` and `/doc/frotz` are > equivalent. > However `/bar` and `bar` are different. They both match the > `bar` file or folder at the top level, but only the latter > will also match `foo/bar` > (when `foo` is at the top level). > > This avoids the hustle with the ambiguous path, where it starts, and > trailing or leading slashes. Together with the > two examples it seems to be a good compromise between accuracy and > understandable. > > The alternative would be to say > > A pattern with a non-trailing slash is only matched against any > path that begins in the directory of the `.gitignore` file. > > While this is maybe clearer then saying "pattern [...] always > considered to begin at` it is ambiguous about the slashes. > So a very accuracy but maybe less understandable version would be > something like this: > > A pattern with a non-trailing slash is only matched against any > path that begins in the directory of the `.gitignore` file. > For example, if the `.gitignore` file is in folder `doc` > the path to file `bar/doc/a/foo` that begins in `doc` is `a/foo`. > A pattern that matches a path except for a leading slash or > trailing slash > is still considered a match. It is still valid however, > that when a pattern ends with a slash, it would only find a > match with a directory. > > --------- > > > Also, a pattern "/doc" matches doc at the current level (i.e. the > > directory in which .gitignore file that the pattern was taken from > > is found) and not in any subdirectories. Is that clear in the > > proposed update? > > Yes. > > However, in the docs is already one paragraph solely dedicated for this case: > > > A leading slash matches the beginning of the pathname. For example, "/*.c" matches > > "cat-file.c" but not "mozilla-sha1/sha1.c". > > However, we have already a better and more in detail explained example > in the new > proposal `*` paragraph and and the case with the leading slash is > now a sub-case of `A pattern with a non-trailing slash` > so we might just get rid of the above paragraph? > ---------- > > > Thank you for explaining me how the algorithm works procedurally. > It gave some inside of the origin of "If the pattern ends with a slash, it is > removed for the purpose of the following description.." > --------- > > All the best, > Adam
