[RFC] Improvements to is_ignored.

[Jan Hudec]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 10:57:24 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2006, Jan Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz> wrote:
> >   * New glob->regex convertor that more closely follows shell semantics.
> >     It has * and ? not matching .-files, **/ matching any number of path
> >     components (zsh-style - whole components only!) and ***/ that also
> >     matches .-dirs, named character groups ([[:alnum:]], [[:digit:]],
> >     [[:space::]] are unicode-aware) and RE:regexp.
> 
> There was some discussion last time about whether ** should match only
> whole components, or any substring.  The zsh form seems a bit more
> precise.  Does anyone have an opinion?
> 
> I don't expect it will be used very often in ignore patterns; it's
> probably more likely in the branch configuration, where we might have
> 
> [/home/mbp/**/bzr.mbp.*]
> 
> and even in that case it makes no difference which meaning we use.

It makes difference for one thing. If it only matches whole components, we
can split on '/' and then match the individual patterns to individual
components. While when ** matches any string, this becomes complicated. It is
also a reason I decided not to add zsh-style () and # - they would complicate
this a lot.

> >   * The .bzrignore file is read in utf-8. If decoding fails, it is not used.
> 
> I'd like at least a warning to be shown if it can't be decoded, rather
> than just being unused.

Yes, it does issue a warning.

> [...]
>
> > Other things to consider:
> > 
> >   * Do we actually want to use the semantics that * and ? don't match . at the
> >     begining of a path component? It is closer to what people expect, since
> >     it is what shell does. However semantics is more useful.
> 
> (I don't understand that last sentence.)

'which' fell out.

> I think being consistent with the shell is best.  The only drawback is
> that it may confuse windows users who are not familiar with that aspect
> of unix globs, but they're less likely to have dot files anyhow.
> 
> >   * Do we want to use the new globs for finding per-branch sections in
> >     ~/.bazaar/bazaar.conf? Probably yes I think. This will be user-visible
> >     change.
> 
> Yes, I think so.

Ok.

> >   * Do we want to use the new glob semantics for expanding command-line
> >     arguments on Windows? I think I can do that (with exception of the RE:
> >     'pseudo'-globs) relatively easily.
> 
> That would be good.  I'd like sometime to do this more systematically by
> defining which arguments should be glob-expandd, rather than doing it
> inside the run method.

Yes, that would be good too.

Um, I just realized that I have to fix this anyway, because the module is
called glob, which conflicts with top-level glob and python can't load the
global module in such cases :-(.

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060121/5fb61825/attachment.pgp