home | list info | list archive | date index | thread index

Re: [OCLUG-Tech] more git pedantry -- clarifications about .gitignore

  • Subject: Re: [OCLUG-Tech] more git pedantry -- clarifications about .gitignore
  • From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb [ at ] tricolour [ dot ] ca>
  • Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:16:44 -0400
On 15/04/29, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> 
> > On 15/04/29, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
> > >   next question -- a pattern will apply to *any* file type (file or
> > > directory), unless suffixed with a slash, whereupon it will apply only
> > > to a directory, yes? this would appear to be the case since the kernel
> > > .gitignore contains the following lines:
> > >
> > > /vmlinux
> > > /System.map
> > > ...
> > > /debian/
> > > /tar-install/
> >
> > I assume the "/" prefix anchors it in the root of the git tree...
> 
>   well, that was one of the confusing bits as i mentioned earlier ...
> what does it mean if it shows up in a lower-level .gitignore. the man
> page states thusly:
> 
>   A leading slash matches the beginning of the pathname. For example,
>   "/*.c" matches "cat-file.c" but not "mozilla-sha1/sha1.c".
> 
> but if it's in a subdirectory, does it mean the pathname relative to
> that subdirectory? the man page doesn't make that clear.

I would have assumed relative to the subdirectory, so the arch example you
presented earlier, both would match.

> rday

	slainte mhath, RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs               --  ~\    -- ~\             <hpv.tricolour.ca>
<www.TriColour.ca>                 --  \___   o \@      @        Ride yer bike!
Ottawa, ON, CANADA                  --  Lo_>__M__\\/\%__\\/\%
Vote! -- <greenparty.ca>_____GTVS6#790__(*)__(*)________(*)(*)_________________