Re: Git ignore help

Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

e.g. "db", "reports" or "scripts", we could keep going for a while. I
think I attempted to do this in the past and failed (don't remember
exactly why). Maybe I'll try again some time in future.

I also was pretty sure that you had attempted this, but couldn't find
a reference to it, so I didn't mention it in my response. However,
with some more digging, I finally located it[1].

[1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/259870

Thank you. I only looked at my repo and no branch name suggested it
(if only there is google search for a git repository..). So I gave up
because of performance reasons again but that was for enabling it
unconditionaly. If we enable it via a config variable and the user is
made aware of the performance implications, I guess it would be ok. So
it's back in my back log.

How much does a config variable actually help? In a sense, one could
argue that this is already an opt-in feature since it requires
crafting gitignore in a particular fashion. Existing projects which
have (properly) functioning gitignore rules won't trigger this
behavior. In many cases, Git already allows people to shoot themselves
in the foot if they desire, thus, as long as the potential performance
impact is properly documented, this could be considered another such
instance.

Yeah, as I re-read that old thread, I really do not think anything
wrong with the reasoning expressed in the proposed log message.  It
is pointless to hunt for "!do-not-exclude-me-please" in D/.gitignore
when "D/" appears in .gitignore in the higher level, but if these two
i.e.

	D/
        !D/do-not-exclude-me-please

appear together in .gitignore in the higher level, we can pay
attention to that and pick up that single path.  And doing so would
be a lot more intuitive to the end user.

My comment in the thread was only about the documentation being
unclear and not about the feature, but somehow we failed to
follow-up the topic to completion X-<.