Expanding the include/exclude options

Ben Escoto bescoto@stanford.edu
Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:47:42 -0800

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

>>>>> "DB" == Donovan Baarda <abo@minkirri.apana.org.au>
>>>>> wrote the following on Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:35:01 +1100

  DB> Lets define "implicit including" to mean implicit matching of
  DB> parent directories of matched files. For example, "+/home/abo/**
  DB> -**' would match the following;

  DB> Lets define "implicit scanning" to mean not pruning parent
  DB> directories of matched files, but not including them either
  DB> unless they are explicitly included. For example, "+/home/abo/**
  DB> -**' would _not_ match the following;

Ok, this sounds useful, but I'm not sure why we wouldn't want to match
all parent directories of matched files.  Intuitive, it seems that

--include **.txt

should match /home iff somewhere in home there was a .txt file.  But
if the only .txt files in /home were in /home/abo, then abo is the
only file in /home that should get matched and backed up.

    So maybe this is a combination of the two, where you look through
directories not knowing before hand whether or not anything in side
will get matched, but if anything does, then all the parent
directories get matched.  (I guess literally this system would do
"implicit including" but not "implicit scanning".)

    For exclude lists, it seems that we should do neither implicit
including nor implicit scanning.

Ben Escoto

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 01/15/2001