Catalin Marinas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think it would make more sense for the exclude-per-directory > patterns to be local to that directory only, without recursively > preserving them for subdirectories.
I personally do not have preference either way, but am slightly biased towards the "cumulative" behaviour the patch attempts to implement, which was what Pasky said he wanted to have. Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:59:48 +0200 From: Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Tell vim the textwidth is 75. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *3* .gitignore in the cwd is used in Cogito, if I am not > mistaken. Yes. There were several discussions about this in the past, with no clear outcome, IIRC. I would prefer: ~/.git/ignore per-user /.git/ignore per-repository .gitignore per-directory (cummulative with parent directories) >> An exclude pattern is of the following format: > [...] > > That's fine. Actually, the Porcelain would care much about it since it > gets the information already filtered by git. Your saying "fine" is a relief. This change aims at helping Porcelain people by making it less likely for Porcelain to need its own filtering. As you say, if ls-files filters more than the Porcelain wants, that's a bigger problem. >> $ cat Documentation/.gitignore >> # ignore generated html files, >> # except foo.html which is maintained by hand >> !foo.html >> *.html > > Wouldn't it be clearer to have the general rules first (*.html), > overridden by the more specific ones (!foo.html)? Just my opinion, I > don't know what others think. I do not know, either, but I do know it is consistent with the "first match determines fate" rule and cleaner to implement. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html