On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >> + - A trailing "/**" matches everything inside. For example, >> + "abc/**" is equivalent to "`/abc/`". > > It seems odd that you add a leading slash in this example. I assume > that is because of the rule that a pattern containing a slash is > considered anchored at the current directory. But I find it confusing > because the addition of the leading slash is not part of the rule you > are trying to illustrate here, and is therefore a distraction. I > suggest that you write either > > - A trailing "/**" matches everything inside. For example, > "/abc/**" is equivalent to "`/abc/`". > > or > > - A trailing "/**" matches everything inside. For example, > "abc/**" is equivalent to "`abc/`" (which is also equivalent > to "`/abc/`").
The tricky thing in .gitignore is that the last '/' alone does not imply anchor. So "abc/" means match _directory_ abc anywhere in worktree. So the former is probably better. I should also add a note here (or in gitattributes.txt) about the difference between "/abc/*" and "/abc/**". The former assigns attributes to all files directly under abc (e.g. depth 1), the latter infinite depth. >> + - A slash followed by two consecutive asterisks then a slash >> + matches zero or more directories. For example, "`a/**/b`" >> + matches "`a/b`", "`a/x/b`", "`a/x/y/b`" and so on. >> + >> + - Consecutive asterisks otherwise are treated like normal >> + asterisk wildcards. >> + > > I don't like the last rule. (1) This construct is superfluous; why > wouldn't the user just use a single asterisk? (2) Allowing this > construct means that it could appear in .gitignore files, creating > unnecessary confusion: extrapolating from the other meanings of "**" > users would expect that it would somehow match slashes. (3) It is > conceivable (though admittedly unlikely) that we might want to assign a > distinct meaning to this construct in the future, and accepting it now > as a different way to spell "*" would prevent such a change. > > Perhaps this rule was intended for backwards compatibility? We break backwards compatibility already. Existing "**/" or "/**" patterns now behave differently. > I think it would be preferable to say that other uses of consecutive > asterisks are undefined, and probably make them trigger a warning. Instead of undefined, we can reject the pattern as "broken". I have to check how fnmatch/wildmatch deals with broken patterns (it must do). If it returns a different code for broken patterns, then we can warn users, which is not limited in just "**" breakage. -- Duy -- 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
