[OCLUG-Tech] more git pedantry -- clarifications about .gitignore

2015-04-29 Thread Robert P. J. Day
some (hopefully) trivial questions about .gitignore, since the actual documentation isn't as precise as it could be. as examples, i'm going to use the top-level .gitignore file that comes with the kernel source tree, since it seems that that file could be clearer. from the first part of the

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] more git pedantry -- clarifications about .gitignore

2015-04-29 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 15/04/29, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: On 15/04/29, Robert P. J. Day wrote: next question -- a pattern will apply to *any* file type (file or directory), unless suffixed with a slash, whereupon it will apply only to a directory, yes?

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] more git pedantry -- clarifications about .gitignore

2015-04-29 Thread Stephen Kraemer
On 2015-04-29 12:26, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: On 15/04/29, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: On 15/04/29, Robert P. J. Day wrote: next question -- a pattern will apply to *any* file type (file or

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] more git pedantry -- clarifications about .gitignore

2015-04-29 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: On 15/04/29, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: On 15/04/29, Robert P. J. Day wrote: next question -- a pattern will apply to *any* file type (file or directory), unless suffixed with a slash,

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] more git pedantry -- clarifications about .gitignore

2015-04-29 Thread Alex Pilon
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:33:51AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: and another thing ... why both of these lines? include/generated arch/*/include/generated isn't there a wildcard pattern that would subsume both of those entries? On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Alex Pilon wrote:

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] more git pedantry -- clarifications about .gitignore

2015-04-29 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Alex Pilon wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:33:51AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:18:05PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: which brings up even more pedantry (as you knew it would) ... from man 5 gitignore, we read: If the pattern

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] more git pedantry -- clarifications about .gitignore

2015-04-29 Thread Alex Pilon
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:33:51AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: some (hopefully) trivial questions about .gitignore, since the actual documentation isn't as precise as it could be. Which? gitignore(5)? and another thing ... why both of these lines? include/generated

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] more git pedantry -- clarifications about .gitignore

2015-04-29 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 15/04/29, Robert P. J. Day wrote: some (hopefully) trivial questions about .gitignore, since the actual documentation isn't as precise as it could be. as examples, i'm going to use the top-level .gitignore file that comes with the kernel source tree, since it seems that that file could be

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] more git pedantry -- clarifications about .gitignore

2015-04-29 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Alex Pilon wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:33:51AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: some (hopefully) trivial questions about .gitignore, since the actual documentation isn't as precise as it could be. Which? gitignore(5)? in the end, that's the one i'm using as