On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:29:21PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Now obviously there is recursion happening inside git-archive, as it > > walks the tree. And the current behavior is that it sees the ignored > > subtree and doesn't walk into it at all. So it _could_ make your > > original example work by actually searching within the tree for any > > paths marked -export-ignore, and including the directory if and only if > > it has unignored entries. > > > > I can't offhand think of anything that would break if we started doing > > that,... > > If there is some effect we want to attach to a directory itself > without affecting the paths inside it, the current and original > design lets you express it naturally. If we make a pattern that > match a directory to recurse, it is still possible to express it, > but it is a bit cumbersome, e.g. > > /directory want-to-affect-this > /directory/** -want-to-affect-this > > I would think. I didn't mean teaching the attribute code anything about recursion. You convinced me in the thread I linked that the current rules are just fine for expressing what we want (and especially with "**" now it's easy). It's git-archive which does the recursion here, so it could have more convenient semantics for an attribute attached to a directory. (Though again, I'm happy enough with the solutions I've suggested in this thread). > Git generally does *not* track directories, so in a sense it is > arguable if it even makes sense to think about attaching an > attribute to a directory itself (as opposed to a non-directory > inside the directory) in the first place, though. I mostly agree, though in this case if we are exporting to a tarball, which _does_ care about directories. So the difference between "don't export foo/" and "don't export foo/*" can be observed in the output. I doubt anybody really cares that much in practice, though (i.e., does anybody really want to be able to output empty directories in their tarballs?). -Peff
