Re: [PATCH/docs] make slash-rules more readable

["Dr. Adam Nielsen" <admin@in-ici.net>]

I think its maybe hard to track all the changes that we have discussed
so far. Should I create a new PATCH request including all the changes
from the recent mails and then we continue the discussion from there?

Best regards,
Adam

Am Mi., 10. Apr. 2019 um 09:39 Uhr schrieb Dr. Adam Nielsen <admin@in-ici.net>:
>
> > the pattern is matched against paths in the directory where the
> > `.gitignore` file that has the pattern in it is in, and any of
> > its subdirectories (recursively).
>
> > the pattern will match in all directories relative to
> > the `.gitignore` file, with infinite depth.
>
> I could not catch the difference between the meaning of both.
> However, I think "paths in the directory" and "directories relative to"
> are maybe both ambiguous.
>
> Since a pattern without a non-trailing slash must always be a file name or a
> folder name, and does not have a leading slash, we could maybe just
> say it like this:
>
>         the pattern is matched against all files and folders (recursively)
>         from the location of the `.gitignore` file.
> ---------
>
>
> > Unlike a pattern without a slash, a pattern with a
> > non-trailing slash is matched against paths immediately in
> > the directory the `.gitignore` file the pattern appears in
> > is stored in, and does not get used in its subdirectories..
>
> I think one can always assume that we talking about the relevant
> `.gitignore` file (where the pattern appears in).
>
> Perhaps this covers it all?
>
>         A pattern with a non-trailing slash is always considered
>         to begin at the `.gitignore` file location.
>
> followed by your example
>
> > For example, the pattern `doc/frotz/` that appears in
> > `.gitignore` at the top-level of the project matches
> > `doc/frotz` directory (again, seen from the top-level), but
> > not `a/doc/frotz`.
>
> and maybe one more example
>
>         Note that the pattern `doc/frotz` and `/doc/frotz` are
>         equivalent.
>         However `/bar` and `bar` are different. They both match the
>         `bar` file or folder at the top level, but only the latter
> will also match `foo/bar`
>         (when `foo` is at the top level).
>
> This avoids the hustle with the ambiguous path, where it starts, and
> trailing or leading slashes. Together with the
> two examples it seems to be a good compromise between accuracy and
> understandable.
>
> The alternative would be to say
>
>         A pattern with a non-trailing slash is only matched against any
>         path that begins in the directory of the `.gitignore` file.
>
> While this is maybe clearer then saying "pattern [...] always
> considered to begin at` it is ambiguous about the slashes.
> So a very accuracy but maybe less understandable version would be
> something like this:
>
>         A pattern with a non-trailing slash is only matched against any
>         path that begins in the directory of the `.gitignore` file.
>         For example, if the `.gitignore` file is in folder `doc`
>         the path to file  `bar/doc/a/foo` that begins in `doc` is `a/foo`.
>         A pattern that matches a path except for a leading slash or
> trailing slash
>         is still considered a match. It is still valid however,
>         that when a pattern ends with a slash, it would only find a
> match with a directory.
>
> ---------
>
> > Also, a pattern "/doc" matches doc at the current level (i.e. the
> > directory in which .gitignore file that the pattern was taken from
> > is found) and not in any subdirectories.  Is that clear in the
> > proposed update?
>
> Yes.
>
> However, in the docs is already one paragraph solely dedicated for this case:
>
> > A leading slash matches the beginning of the pathname. For example, "/*.c" matches
> > "cat-file.c" but not "mozilla-sha1/sha1.c".
>
> However, we have already a better and more in detail explained example
> in the new
> proposal `*` paragraph and and the case with the leading slash is
> now a sub-case of `A pattern with a non-trailing slash`
> so we might just get rid of the above paragraph?
> ----------
>
>
> Thank you for explaining me how the algorithm works procedurally.
> It gave some inside of the origin of "If the pattern ends with a slash, it is
> removed for the purpose of the following description.."
> ---------
>
> All the best,
> Adam