On 08.05.19 07:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:
"Dr. Adam Nielsen" <admin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
+ - A pattern that contains a non-trailing slash is matched relative to the location of the `.gitignore` file.
+ For example, `doc/frotz/` matches `doc/frotz` directory, but not
+ `a/doc/frotz` (relative from the `.gitignore` file).
+ Note that the pattern `doc/frotz` and `/doc/frotz` have the
+ same effect in any `.gitignore` file, while `/bar` and `bar`
+ have not the same effect (`/bar` will not match `foo/bar`).
The "note" is not incorrect per-se. The behaviour described is
because the leading slash is removed for the purpose of textual
matching against paths, but still counts as a non-trailing slash for
the purpose of anchoring the pattern to the level of recursion.
I am not sure if that is obvious to the readers, though.
Yes, its not explained to the reader that the leading slash is removed
for the purpose of textual matching. But maybe this is not necessary in
order to understand the effect of the pattern.
Especially
because the "a leading slash matches the beginning of ..." which was
in the original is still left and appears two bullet points after
this one, the presentation order seem a bit suboptimal.
I agree. The paragraph "a leading slash matches the beginning of ..."
should be deleted, because its already covered by the top rule plus an
example.
How about deleting that "A leading slash matches the beginning..."
bullet, and then splitting the above bullet into two? That is
- A pattern that contains a non-trailing slash is matched
is matched relative to the location of the `.gitignore` file.
For example, `doc/frotz/` matches `doc/frotz` directory, but not
`a/doc/frotz` (relative from the `.gitignore` file).
I agree that the case of a leading slash is important and deserves its
own paragraph, especially if we remove the last bullet.
- A leading slash, if any, is implicitly removed before matching the
pattern with the pathname, but the pattern still counts as having
a non-trailing slash for the purpose of the above rule. For
I would try to avoid ambiguous words like `implicitly removed ` and
`pathname` that have not been used before. Also I am not sure if
explaining the reader how the algorithm works is the best approach.
example, a pattern `{asterisk}.c` does not have any slash in it,
so it would match a file or a directory whose name ends with `.c`
anywhere in the directory that has `.gitignore` file in it
(e.g. `sub/foo.c`, `bar.c`).
A similar example is already in the "If the pattern contains no
slash.." paragraph. I think it takes a bit too much space just to
explain the difference when a leading slash appears.
By prefixing a slash to make it
`/{asterisk}.c`, it can be limited to match only at the current
level (i.e. `bar.c` but not `sub/foo.c`).
How about we split it like this:
- A pattern that contains a non-trailing slash is matched
relative to the location of the `.gitignore` file.
For example, `doc/frotz/` matches `doc/frotz` directory, but not
`a/doc/frotz` (relative from the `.gitignore` file; note that the
example has a trailing and a non-trailing slash at the same time).
- Note: A pattern with a leading slash has a non-trailing slash
and is therefore effected by the previous paragraph.
For example, the pattern `/bar` only matches the file or
folder `bar` that is at the same location as the `gitignore` file.
Whereas the pattern `bar` would also match in folders below the
`gitignore` file.
On the other hand, the pattern `doc/frotz` and `/doc/frotz`
have the same effect in any `.gitignore` file, because both
have a non-trailing slash.
+ - 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.
s/patter/&n/
+ The character "`?`" matches any one character except "`/`".
+ The range notation, e.g. `[a-zA-Z]`, can be used to match
+ one of the characters in a range. See fnmatch(3) and the
+ FNM_PATHNAME flag for a more detailed description.
- A leading slash matches the beginning of the pathname.
For example, "/{asterisk}.c" matches "cat-file.c" but not
Then this last paragraph can be removed.
Agree.
-
Another thing that I noticed is that its not mentioned anywhere that the
pattern use a slash as a directory separator (instead of a backslash),
its only clear from the examples. Maybe its worth to mention it in the
"PATTERN FORMAT" section. Also its maybe worth to introduce the term
"leading slash" and "trailing slash" because they will be of importance
of the following paragraphs. Something like this after the paragraph of "!":
[...] for example, "\!important!.txt".
A slash `/` is used as a directory separator.
A leading slash (that is if the pattern begins with a slash)
or a trailing slash (that is if the pattern ends with a slash)
have special meaning and are explained below.
If the pattern contains a trailing slash, it would only find
a match with a directory. [...]
