Problem with bzr without default ignore list.

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Since a few revisions, bzr has no default ignore list. Globally, I
> find it to be a good thing, because the default is usually hard to
> override.
> 
> However, I'm just encountering a problem that I don't know how to
> solve cleanly.
> 
> DVC (Emacs interface) uses a file .tmp-bzr-log-edit.txt to save
> intermediate log messages (and then commit with --file
> .tmp-bzr-log-edit.txt, this is the equivalent of the ++log.blah of GNU
> Arch).
> 
> Using the .tmp prefix, we got sure this file would be ignored, but
> now, this files pops up in "bzr status".

If the front-end really knows what it is doing, it probably could use
.bzr/tmp/xxx

At least, that was an earlier proposal, that bzr would support having
temporary files there. However, if you want it to be something that the
user can see (like a log file they edit), then it should belong in the
working directory.

> 
> DVC is one example, but "bzr shelve" has the same problem, and many
> other bzr-related tools will also want to store hidden or temporary
> files in the tree.
> 
> My suggestion is to re-enable a default ignore list, with just one
> pattern in the default ignore list, like ".bzr-*", or maybe
> ".bzr-ignore-*" so that third-party applications can use
> .bzr-<appname>-whatever for hidden files.
> 
> The other option is to have the application set up its own ignore list
> when needed. This would be reasonable if a per-user ignore list is
> implemented (then DVC would add itself to this list the first time).
> 
> Any opinion?
> 

I don't know if you've followed the other thread where I implemented
user global ignores. It seems fairly likely that this will be added.
Martin seems happy with it, and it solves a particular need now that
defaults are gone.

The only question at this point is if we will use a built-in default if
~/.bazaar/ignore doesn't exist.

I think we should, since it means people won't get shocked by the
transition to 0.9, but it hasn't really been discussed enough to decide
one way or another. I'll be cleaning up the ignore stuff so we can
hopefully get it included today.

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEsntcJdeBCYSNAAMRAnCLAJ9ze5Q6Q1x9bxxEwtrrzPF+NPY9rACgyUgh
riIPg167yfr9ri093qCs0cY=
=wdj8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----