On Sat, Oct 23 2021, Justus Ranvier wrote: > On 10/23/21 04:01, brian m. carlson wrote: >> For example, I > > I'm glad that works for you and whatever organizations you happen to > be involved in. I'm sure you're happy that git taking away this > capability did not impact your workflow. > > Other people have different use cases and operate under different sets > of constraints and are considerably inconvenienced when functionality > that has worked for many years is suddenly removed from a core piece > of software like git. I've workd on repos that had the union of every editor tempfile under the sun in the .gitignore, it didn't really cause any practical problems, they tend not to conflict with "real" filenames. As for the .gitignore problem I think it's very much in the state of "patches welcome", see a previous summary of mine at : https://lore.kernel.org/git/87o8c34dq6.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I.e. I don't think anyone should consider the current behavior to be set in stone, and certainly not when it comes to potential opt-in configuration.
