"Dr. Adam Nielsen" <admin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> + - The pattern `doc/frotz` and `/doc/frotz` have the same effect >>> + in any `.gitignore` file. Both pattern contain a non-trailing >>> + slash and thus match relative to the location of the >>> + `.gitignore` file. >> >> ... this paragraph wouldn't have been necessary. > > I think this above example follows from (and thus isn't necessary, but > just a fine example) > > + - The pattern is matched relative to the location of > + the `.gitignore` file. Except if the pattern contains > + no slash [...] > > Because a pattern with a leading slash has a slash, it "is matched > relative to the location of the `.gitignore` file". But that does not explain why the pattern /doc/frotz matches the path doc/frotz. A reader can understand 'd' (the second letter in the patern) would match 'd' (the firstr letter in the path), 'o' with 'o', etc., but nobody told the reader which substring of the path consumes the leading '/' in the pattern as matched. >> - 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. Yeah, that would be an addition that makes the updated text more complete.
