| commit | dcf0c16ef1a8c2e468afe686a27a5549fea59798 | |
| author | Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> | |
| Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:05:02 +0000 (16 17:05 -0800) | ||
| committer | Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> | |
| Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:05:02 +0000 (16 17:05 -0800) | ||
| tree | af8aba6e001ec64b7a6a429673f6d931af9904bc | treesnapshot (tar.gz zip) |
| parent | 2587d6796605273de3a5ec7ba44ee1c1ac2b9302 | commitdiff |
core.excludesfile clean-up
There are inconsistencies in the way commands currently handle
the core.excludesfile configuration variable. The problem is
the variable is too new to be noticed by anything other than
git-add and git-status.
* git-ls-files does not notice any of the "ignore" files by
default, as it predates the standardized set of ignore files.
The calling scripts established the convention to use
.git/info/exclude, .gitignore, and later core.excludesfile.
* git-add and git-status know about it because they call
add_excludes_from_file() directly with their own notion of
which standard set of ignore files to use. This is just a
stupid duplication of code that need to be updated every time
the definition of the standard set of ignore files is
changed.
* git-read-tree takes --exclude-per-directory=<gitignore>,
not because the flexibility was needed. Again, this was
because the option predates the standardization of the ignore
files.
* git-merge-recursive uses hardcoded per-directory .gitignore
and nothing else. git-clean (scripted version) does not
honor core.* because its call to underlying ls-files does not
know about it. git-clean in C (parked in 'pu') doesn't either.
We probably could change git-ls-files to use the standard set
when no excludes are specified on the command line and ignore
processing was asked, or something like that, but that will be a
change in semantics and might break people's scripts in a subtle
way. I am somewhat reluctant to make such a change.
On the other hand, I think it makes perfect sense to fix
git-read-tree, git-merge-recursive and git-clean to follow the
same rule as other commands. I do not think of a valid use case
to give an exclude-per-directory that is nonstandard to
read-tree command, outside a "negative" test in the t1004 test
script.
This patch is the first step to untangle this mess.
The next step would be to teach read-tree, merge-recursive and
clean (in C) to use setup_standard_excludes().
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There are inconsistencies in the way commands currently handle
the core.excludesfile configuration variable. The problem is
the variable is too new to be noticed by anything other than
git-add and git-status.
* git-ls-files does not notice any of the "ignore" files by
default, as it predates the standardized set of ignore files.
The calling scripts established the convention to use
.git/info/exclude, .gitignore, and later core.excludesfile.
* git-add and git-status know about it because they call
add_excludes_from_file() directly with their own notion of
which standard set of ignore files to use. This is just a
stupid duplication of code that need to be updated every time
the definition of the standard set of ignore files is
changed.
* git-read-tree takes --exclude-per-directory=<gitignore>,
not because the flexibility was needed. Again, this was
because the option predates the standardization of the ignore
files.
* git-merge-recursive uses hardcoded per-directory .gitignore
and nothing else. git-clean (scripted version) does not
honor core.* because its call to underlying ls-files does not
know about it. git-clean in C (parked in 'pu') doesn't either.
We probably could change git-ls-files to use the standard set
when no excludes are specified on the command line and ignore
processing was asked, or something like that, but that will be a
change in semantics and might break people's scripts in a subtle
way. I am somewhat reluctant to make such a change.
On the other hand, I think it makes perfect sense to fix
git-read-tree, git-merge-recursive and git-clean to follow the
same rule as other commands. I do not think of a valid use case
to give an exclude-per-directory that is nonstandard to
read-tree command, outside a "negative" test in the t1004 test
script.
This patch is the first step to untangle this mess.
The next step would be to teach read-tree, merge-recursive and
clean (in C) to use setup_standard_excludes().
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>