On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 03:05:30PM +0100, Antoine Pelisse wrote:

> Using the example from Michael's mail, I end up having this:
> $ git status --porcelain --ignored
> ?? .gitignore
> ?? x
> ?? y/
> !! x.ignore-me
> !! y/
> 
> y/ is referred as untracked, because it contains untracked files, and
> then as ignored because it
> contains ignored files.
> 
> Showing it twice doesn't feel right though, so I guess we should only
> show "?? y/" with untracked=normal,
> and "!! y/foo.ignore-me" when using untracked=all
> 
> What do you think ?

Good catch. I agree that showing just "?? y/" in the untracked=normal
case makes sense. It makes the definition of "!!" to mean "all untracked
files in this path are ignored". IOW, showing "??" means there are one
or more untracked, unignored files. There may _also_ be ignored files,
but we do not say (nor we even necessarily need to bother checking).

In retrospect, I think it might have made more sense to use the second
character of an untracked line to represent "ignored". That is, the
output:

  ?? .gitignore
  ?? x
  ?! y/
  !! x.ignore-me

would make sense to me. But that would be a backwards-incompatible
change at this point, and I don't think it's worth it.

-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to