On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:25:27AM -0400, Dakota Hawkins wrote: > > Right. The technical reason is mostly "that is not how it was designed, > > and it would possibly break some corner cases if we switched it now". > > I'm just spitballing here, but do you guys think there's any subset of > the combined .gitignore and .gitattributes matching functionality that > could at least serve as a good "best-practices, going forward" > (because of consistency) for both? I will say every time I do this for > a new repo and have to do something even slightly complicated or > different from what I've done before with .gitattributes/.gitignore > that it takes me a long-ish time to figure it out. It's like I'm > vaguely aware of pitfalls I've encountered in the past in certain > areas but don't remember exactly what they are, so I consult the docs, > which are (in sum) confusing and lead to more time spent > trying/failing/trying/works/fails-later/etc. > > One "this subset of rules will work for both this way" would be > awesome even if the matching capabilities are technically divergent, > but on the other hand that might paint both into a corner in terms of > functionality.
As far as I know, they should be the same with the exception of this recursion, and the negative-pattern thing. But I'm cc-ing Duy, who is the resident expert on ignore and attributes matching (whether he wants to be or not ;) ). I wouldn't be surprised if there's something I don't know about. So I think the "recommended subset" is basically "everything but these few constructs". We just need to document them. ;) I probably should cc'd Duy on the documentation patch, too: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180320041454.ga15...@sigill.intra.peff.net/ -Peff
