I guess, it depends on what you call empty. And even then it is kind of
confusing with the statement that git tracks files, *not* directories.
Hence I would expect git to also ignores files not the directory itself.
Hence in my opinion it should list all ignored files in your working
directory which are not tracked. I feel that it does not matter whether the
directory, is empty or not. Especially since git doesn't really track
directories, it tracks files. For that matter: Why does git even have
concept of a directory, empty or otherwise? If it only tracks files?
hmm maybe I should post this to the git list as Konstantin mentioned.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Konstantin Khomoutov <
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:10:13 +0100
> Jeroen De Vlieger <fly....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Any idea on this design choice? when I ask to list ignored files, and
> > some are not listed, then it feels like bug. Or in this case a bad
> > design decision.
> As Thomas said, Git does not track directories. For instance, you
> can't `git add` an empty directory, and `git add <directory>` does only
> seem to make Git track that directory because it makes Git track *files*
> under that directory.
> I have no idea about why Git devs picked this design choice and not
> some other; I also perceive this behaviour might be confusing.
> Another thing to consider is that this list is dedicated to helping
> novice users. If you feel like you've found a bug or misfeature,
> please feel free to bring it up on the main Git list  as Git devs
> do not read the list which we're currently using for conversing.
> 1. https://gist.github.com/tfnico/4441562
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git
for human beings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.