Brandon Williams <bmw...@google.com> writes: > On a similar but slightly different note. In general do we want > the pathspec '??b' to match against the sib/ directory and > subsequently have ls-files print all entries inside of the sib/ > directory? (this is in the non-recursive case)
I'd need to find time to dig a bit of history before I can give a firm opinion on this, but here is a knee-jerk version of my reaction. * A pathspec element that matches literally to a directory causes itself and everything underneath the directory match that element, e.g. "sib" would be considered a match. * Otherwise, a pathspec that matches with the whole path as a pattern matches the path, e.g. "??b" would match "sib" itself, but not "sib/file". Note that "??b*" would match "sib" and "sib/file" because the pattern match is without FNM_PATNAME unless ':(glob)' magic is in effect. Historically, some commands treated a pathspec as purely a prefix match (i.e. the former) and did not use _any_ pattern matching, while other commands did both of the above two (e.g. compare ls-tree and ls-files). I thought we were slowly moving towards unifying them, but apparently 'git log -- "D?cumentation"' does not show anything close to what 'git log -- Documentation' gives us even in today's Git. Probably we want to change it at some point so that a pattern that matches one leading directory would cause everything underneath to match, e.g. "??b" would include "sib/file" just because "sib" would.
