I was freaking out a bit for a while there because I had created some files with names like dillo_hg_* and "hg status" was not reporting them as untracked, even though I had not "hg add"-ed them. The problem was that .hgignore contains a line "dillo", which ignores every file with the string "dillo" anywhere in its path. Many other lines in .hgignore are similarly inappropriate. It looks as though these lines were written to be interpreted as glob-style patterns, but in fact mercurial interprets every line as a regexp. So here's patch to make .hgignore a little more sensible. Regards, Jeremy Henty
Jeremy wrote:
I was freaking out a bit for a while there because I had created some files with names like dillo_hg_* and "hg status" was not reporting them as untracked, even though I had not "hg add"-ed them.
The problem was that .hgignore contains a line "dillo", which ignores every file with the string "dillo" anywhere in its path. Many other lines in .hgignore are similarly inappropriate. It looks as though these lines were written to be interpreted as glob-style patterns, but in fact mercurial interprets every line as a regexp.
Looking in http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hgignore.5.html it seems that specifying "syntax: glob" is also a possibility.
corvid wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
The problem was that .hgignore contains a line "dillo", which ignores every file with the string "dillo" anywhere in its path. Many other lines in .hgignore are similarly inappropriate. It looks as though these lines were written to be interpreted as glob-style patterns, but in fact mercurial interprets every line as a regexp.
Looking in http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hgignore.5.html it seems that specifying "syntax: glob" is also a possibility.
Yes, glob syntax might well be better, but either way the current .hgignore is not working as it should and could do with fixing. Regards, Jeremy Henty
Back in July, Jeremy wrote:
corvid wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
The problem was that .hgignore contains a line "dillo", which ignores every file with the string "dillo" anywhere in its path. Many other lines in .hgignore are similarly inappropriate. It looks as though these lines were written to be interpreted as glob-style patterns, but in fact mercurial interprets every line as a regexp.
Looking in http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hgignore.5.html it seems that specifying "syntax: glob" is also a possibility.
Yes, glob syntax might well be better, but either way the current .hgignore is not working as it should and could do with fixing.
Just noticed this thread while cleaning out old mail, and we should come to some kind of decision on this.
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 03:28:36PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Back in July, Jeremy wrote:
corvid wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
The problem was that .hgignore contains a line "dillo", which ignores every file with the string "dillo" anywhere in its path. Many other lines in .hgignore are similarly inappropriate. It looks as though these lines were written to be interpreted as glob-style patterns, but in fact mercurial interprets every line as a regexp.
Looking in http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hgignore.5.html it seems that specifying "syntax: glob" is also a possibility.
Yes, glob syntax might well be better, but either way the current .hgignore is not working as it should and could do with fixing.
Just noticed this thread while cleaning out old mail, and we should come to some kind of decision on this.
Heh, I was *just* about to bump this discussion by resubmitting my patch! Is there any reason not to push this? Unless people would prefer glob syntax? Regards, Jeremy Henty
Jeremy wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 03:28:36PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Back in July, Jeremy wrote:
corvid wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
The problem was that .hgignore contains a line "dillo", which ignores every file with the string "dillo" anywhere in its path. Many other lines in .hgignore are similarly inappropriate. It looks as though these lines were written to be interpreted as glob-style patterns, but in fact mercurial interprets every line as a regexp.
Looking in http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hgignore.5.html it seems that specifying "syntax: glob" is also a possibility.
Yes, glob syntax might well be better, but either way the current .hgignore is not working as it should and could do with fixing.
Just noticed this thread while cleaning out old mail, and we should come to some kind of decision on this.
Heh, I was *just* about to bump this discussion by resubmitting my patch! Is there any reason not to push this? Unless people would prefer glob syntax?
My opinion is: Either syntax, as long as it's fixed...
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 05:01:57PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 03:28:36PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Back in July, Jeremy wrote:
corvid wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
The problem was that .hgignore contains a line "dillo", which ignores every file with the string "dillo" anywhere in its path. Many other lines in .hgignore are similarly inappropriate. It looks as though these lines were written to be interpreted as glob-style patterns, but in fact mercurial interprets every line as a regexp.
Looking in http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hgignore.5.html it seems that specifying "syntax: glob" is also a possibility.
Yes, glob syntax might well be better, but either way the current .hgignore is not working as it should and could do with fixing.
Just noticed this thread while cleaning out old mail, and we should come to some kind of decision on this.
Heh, I was *just* about to bump this discussion by resubmitting my patch! Is there any reason not to push this? Unless people would prefer glob syntax?
My opinion is: Either syntax, as long as it's fixed...
Also my opinion. Cheers, Johannes
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 09:25:38PM +0100, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 05:01:57PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 03:28:36PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Back in July, Jeremy wrote:
corvid wrote:
Jeremy wrote: > The problem was that .hgignore contains a line "dillo", which > ignores every file with the string "dillo" anywhere in its > path. Many other lines in .hgignore are similarly > inappropriate. It looks as though these lines were written to > be interpreted as glob-style patterns, but in fact mercurial > interprets every line as a regexp.
Looking in http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hgignore.5.html it seems that specifying "syntax: glob" is also a possibility.
Yes, glob syntax might well be better, but either way the current .hgignore is not working as it should and could do with fixing.
Just noticed this thread while cleaning out old mail, and we should come to some kind of decision on this.
Heh, I was *just* about to bump this discussion by resubmitting my patch! Is there any reason not to push this? Unless people would prefer glob syntax?
My opinion is: Either syntax, as long as it's fixed...
Also my opinion.
OK, I plan to sit on this for a few more days and then push it if there have been no objections. Regards, Jeremy Henty
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 09:25:38PM +0100, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 05:01:57PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 03:28:36PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Back in July, Jeremy wrote:
corvid wrote:
Jeremy wrote: > The problem was that .hgignore contains a line "dillo", which > ignores every file with the string "dillo" anywhere in its > path. Many other lines in .hgignore are similarly > inappropriate. It looks as though these lines were written to > be interpreted as glob-style patterns, but in fact mercurial > interprets every line as a regexp.
Looking in http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hgignore.5.html it seems that specifying "syntax: glob" is also a possibility.
Yes, glob syntax might well be better, but either way the current .hgignore is not working as it should and could do with fixing.
Just noticed this thread while cleaning out old mail, and we should come to some kind of decision on this.
Heh, I was *just* about to bump this discussion by resubmitting my patch! Is there any reason not to push this? Unless people would prefer glob syntax?
My opinion is: Either syntax, as long as it's fixed...
Also my opinion.
+1 -- Cheers Jorge.-
participants (4)
-
corvid＠lavabit.com -
jcid＠dillo.org -
Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de -
onepoint＠starurchin.org