ls-files --ignored can be used together with either --others or
--cached. After being perplexed for a bit and digging in to the code, I
assumed that ls-files -i was just broken and not printing anything and
I had a nice patch ready to submit when I finally realized that -i can be
used with --cached to find tracked ignores.
While that was a mistake on my part, and a careful reading of the
documentation could have made this more clear, I suspect this is an
error others are likely to make as well. In fact, of two uses in our
testsuite, I believe one of the two did make this error. In t1306.13,
there are NO tracked files, and all the excludes built up and used in
that test and in previous tests thus have to be about untracked files.
However, since they were looking for an empty result, the mistake went
unnoticed as their erroneous command also just happened to give an empty
answer.
-i will most the time be used with -o, which would suggest we could just
make -i imply -o in the absence of either a -o or -c, but that would be
a backward incompatible break. Instead, let's just flag -i without
either a -o or -c as an error, and update the two relevant testcases to
specify their intent.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Commit b5227d8 changed the behavior of "ls-files" with
respect to includes, but accidentally broke the "-i" option
The original behavior was:
1. if no "-i" is given, cull all results according to --exclude*
2. if "-i" is given, show the inverse of (1)
The broken behavior was:
1. if no "-i" is given:
a. for "-o", cull results according to --exclude*
b. for index files, always show all
2. if "-i" is given:
a. for "-o", shows the inverse of (1a)
b. for index files, always show all
The fixed behavior keeps the new (1b) behavior introduced
by b5227d8, but fixes the (2b) behavior to show only ignored
files, not all files.
This patch also tweaks the documentation. The original text
was somewhat obscure in the first place, but it is also now
inaccurate (the relationship between (1b) and (2b) is not
quite a "reverse").
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In all parts of git, .gitignore and other exclude files
impact only how we treat untracked files; they should have
no effect on files listed in the index.
This behavior was originally implemented very early on in
9ff768e, but only for --exclude-from. Later, commit 63d285c
accidentally caused us to trigger the behavior for
--exclude-per-directory.
This patch totally ignores excludes for files found in the
index. This means we are reversing the original intent of
9ff768e, while at the same time fixing the accidental
behavior of 63d285c. This is a good thing, though, as the
way that 9ff768e behaved does not really make sense with the
way exclusions are used in modern git.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
