[MERGE] bzr add should be less chatty about ignore rules

Michael Ellerman michael at ellerman.id.au
Fri May 19 02:01:44 BST 2006

On 5/18/06, Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> wrote:
> On 18 May 2006, Michael Ellerman <michael at ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> > On 5/18/06, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> > >This makes bzr add report only the total number of ignored files, rather
> > >than the individual ignore rules.
> >
> > -1 from me. With this applied I probably wouldn't have realised that
> > config.h was ignored by default, until one day when I branched and
> > spent hours trying to work out where my changes to config.h went.
> We should remove config.h, and it looks like we will change the way
> default ignores are applied but people might still get confused, if only
> because of a bad rule they've introduced themselves.
> We could show them as at present but if there's one incorrectly ignored
> file in the middle of many being added and many backups will you really
> notice it?
> What kind of thing did you do to try to track down the problem?  Maybe
> we can improve say status or something like that to help people work out
> what's wrong.
> The basic idea of ignores is that they are *ignored*; you don't want to
> be bothered by them.  I suppose that is a lot safer if the default
> ignore list is empty or very conservative so that people know what's in
> there.
> If we did show them from add then then they will tend to be ignored
> because the same files will come up again and again.
> > I think if we want to make add less chatty then it should just print
> > out the total number of files added, but the ignored stuff is
> > important IMHO.
> Do you think it needs to be the full list or will a count do?

I like the full list, but I can see that people with defective build
systems[1] might be annoyed by it. With a more conservative ignore
list I guess this is ok .. and it's merged anyway so .. :)


[1] It's a _source_ tree, don't build in it!

More information about the bazaar mailing list