On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Jacek Cała <jacek.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One more thought. Perhaps, there's no need for a separate ignore list > but just a bit different semantics of the existing 'ignore-glob'. > In my experience, changing/extending semantics means lots of new room for special cases and backwards compatibility problems. :/. > Couldn't it just be that when a file (a set of files '*.whatever') is > in the ignore-glob it behaves exactly like Richard suggested. From a > user perspective that would be simpler -- just one list which means > ignore yet not prevent from being added. > How could the ignore code differentiate between truly ignored files and those which are "partially ignored"? -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
