Hi! On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 12:10:31 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 06:46:40PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > I've now tried to clarify this in my local tree, I'm attaching the patch. > > This looks good. I'd augment it with something like "it might thus be > necessary to exclude both the directory and its contents, like > --path-exclude=/foo/bar --path-exclude='/foo/bar/*',
Given that (as previously documented) pathnames might get reincluded if the code thinks it might need them later on, I've mentioned just that. And trying so hard to remove specific directory object entries might be in vain after all, so it might not be a good recommendation that sends people in the wrong direction. > and to make sure > that the glob does not get processed by the shell by using appropriate > quoting". I've added a hint for this, but this is normal command-line vs shell interaction, so it feels a bit too explicit. Thanks, Guillem
