Re: [PATCH 3/3] implement pattern matching in ce_path_match

Clemens Buchacher [off-list ref] writes:

I think we could at least add an option to disable globbing. Then we can
also disable the above check conditioned on that. If we allowed globbing
pattern for following renames wouldn't that result in following the first
file (or last in history) to match the pattern, which is potentially
confusing?

Yeah, I agree that would be a reasonable thing to do.  

In places we read paths from the index or from the work tree and add them
as pathspec elements---you would want to mark them as non-globbing, too.
Which probably means that "is it Ok to glob this" setting has to be per
pathspec array elements.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 02:27:03PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

In places we read paths from the index or from the work tree and add them
as pathspec elements---you would want to mark them as non-globbing, too.
Which probably means that "is it Ok to glob this" setting has to be per
pathspec array elements.

Right. This certainly complicates things. Also note that this invalidates
1/3, because even if '?' matched exactly, it can still match '*', and vice
versa. Depending on ordering one of these two cases would pose a problem.