On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:12:07 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote:
> 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?
Sounds good to me.
Mercurial-devel mailing list