On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Yuya Nishihara <y...@tcha.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:40:36 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote:
>> > On Oct 18, 2016, at 09:38, Yuya Nishihara <y...@tcha.org> wrote:
>> >> After coordinating on irc to figure out what this proposal actually
>> >> is, I've noticed that the semantics of this "exact" proposal are
>> >> exactly what "glob" does today, which means (I think) that
>> >> "files:foo/bar" should be representable as "glob:foo/bar/*" - what am
>> >> I missing?
>> > Maybe we want a "glob" relative to the repo root?
>> As far as I can tell, it already is. "relglob:" is relative to your
>> location in the repo according to the docs.
> Unfortunately that isn't.
> 'glob:<glob>' - a glob relative to cwd
> 'relglob:<glob>' - an unrooted glob (*.c matches C files in all dirs)
> Don't ask me why. ;-)
Oh wat. It looks like narrowhg might change this behavior in narrowed
repositories, thus my additional confusion.
Maybe we should add "absglob" that is always repo-root-absolute. How
do we feel about that overall?
Mercurial-devel mailing list