From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F72248783 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 21:59:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705960798; cv=none; b=eLqBddG+duuKkfDPKZ1mNDl9H4N/LccIfKcJ7wtYATKXogVcbfxq64Kxx4XwujQDeKC7jdVqr0gOuFkGQnEB/pZazXQuFL+SkuN+dYVBecjEM63u0VoaE79Q8Yfex2peGYv7h1N1GMo9J9OY4BeYdWf0QVP+piGjAgOeLDzzofo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705960798; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ck7Rff5IRhQ5E5artzQjAFR8J6tFD8gcee2EPuf//lo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EW0XcmAhU05V2YJGYfQCXGyQwcQq326FwimNkBfbdj7qVqeQu0g4BCf3a+d+KrRy0oFmEkm6hNE2U99BXzGzGe5ci65NC1OU6ahpgGI6O2s94g02waFpRu6r+HaS+9dc1U0nZOllGj6E7D0WGSZwGjgEv/JTG5NkKKCInfZHu9s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Received: (qmail 11389 invoked by uid 109); 22 Jan 2024 21:59:55 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 21:59:55 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 9797 invoked by uid 111); 22 Jan 2024 21:59:56 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 16:59:56 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 16:59:54 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Elijah Newren , =?utf-8?B?UmHDumwgTsO6w7Fleg==?= de Arenas Coronado , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Unexpected behavior of ls-files command when using --others --exclude-from, and a .gitignore file which resides in a subdirectory Message-ID: <20240122215954.GA813833@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20240122213410.GA811766@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 01:45:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > PS I hadn't realized that --exclude-per-directory had been marked as > > deprecated. I do agree with e750951e74 (ls-files: guide folks to > > --exclude-standard over other --exclude* options, 2023-01-13) in its > > goal of guiding people to the easiest option, but I don't know that > > there has been any discussion about removing the other ones. > > I do not think there is any value in _removing_ the perfectly well > working --exclude* options, even though I think --exclude-standard > should be what users and scriptors should be using if they want to > emulate what Git does internally. Yeah, mostly I was surprised that e750951e74 used as strong a word as "deprecated". -Peff