On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:16:16PM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> >> After 8b1bd02415 (Make !pattern in .gitattributes non-fatal -
> >> 2013-03-01) maybe we could use the verb "ignored" too instead of
> >> "forbidden"
> >
> > Makes sense. The original is already in 'next', so do you want to send
> > a
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:50 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 05:41:52PM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>
>> > +The rules by which the pattern matches paths are the same as in
>> > +`.gitignore` files (see linkgit:gitignore[5]), with a few exceptions:
>> > +
>> > + - negative patterns are
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 05:41:52PM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > +The rules by which the pattern matches paths are the same as in
> > +`.gitignore` files (see linkgit:gitignore[5]), with a few exceptions:
> > +
> > + - negative patterns are forbidden
>
> After 8b1bd02415 (Make !pattern in .gitatt
to deal with.
>
> So let's not forget to do the easy half there. Here's a patch.
>
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] doc/gitattributes: mention non-recursive behavior
>
> The gitattributes documentation claims that the pattern
> rules are largely the same as for git
;s a maze of backwards
>> compatibility to deal with.
>
> So let's not forget to do the easy half there. Here's a patch.
>
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] doc/gitattributes: mention non-recursive behavior
>
> The gitattributes documentation claims that the patt
> > else there is) were consistent.
>
> I agree it would be nice if they were consistent (and pathspecs, too).
> But unfortunately at this point there's a maze of backwards
> compatibility to deal with.
So let's not forget to do the easy half there. Here's a patch.
-
6 matches
Mail list logo
