On July 14, 2021 1:10 PM, Junio C Hamano >"Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>Assuming that I guessed correctly, is this a deliberate design >>>decision not to "automatically add ** after a pattern that ends with a >>>slash", and if so why? I would have thought that "in the worktrees >>>that I create inside /var/tmp/, please enable these configuration >>>variables" would be a fairly natural thing to ask, and I do not >>>immediately see a reason why we want to apply different syntax rules >>>between "gitdir" and "worktree". > >> The reason for this comes down to what is in *the_repository. > >Sorry, but I still do not understand. > >> Essentially, the_repository->gitdir always has a /path/to/.git >> directory with full qualification. > >Yes. > >> the_repository->worktree does not have /.git added for obvious >>reasons, so the /path/to is bare of the trailing /. > >It may be the case, but /path/to/.git does not have trailing slash, either, so I do not see the relevance. > >When you say [includeIf "gitdir:/path/"], the "behave as if ** is added after the slash at the end" rule kicks in, and the pattern "/path/**" is >used to see if it matches "/path/to/.git" and it does, right? When you say [includeIf "worktree:/path/"], wouldn't the resulting "/path/**" >match "/path/to"? I think I over-complicated the first test case and got myself into a mess. Will fix that. >By the way, I think [PATCH 1/3] should turn the body of >include_by_gitdir() to a common helper function that > > - accepts a path to a directory and a pattern > - turns it into a relpath > - prepares the pattern with prepare_include_condition_pattern() > - do the match include_by_gitdir() does. > >and make include_by_gitdir() a very thin wrapper that passes >opts->git_dir to that common helper. Then you do not have to copy >the entire function to create your new include_by_worktree(); it can be another very thin wrapper that passes the_repository->worktree >instead of opts->git_dir to the common helper, as there is no other difference in these two functions. That sounds like a plan. Will go for it in V2. -Randall
