Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] pathspec: warn for a no-glob entry that contains `**`

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 20:02:31 -0700

Eric Sunshine <[email-masked]> writes:

> I haven't been following the discussion, but is there a reason we need
> to penalize the user with a warning rather than helping, for instance
> by inferring ":(glob)" in the presence of `/**/` if not otherwise
> countermanded by ":(literal)" or whatnot?

Two reasons I can think of offhand are

 - How /**/ is interpreted is not the only thing that is different
   between the normal mode and the glob magic mode.  IIRC, an
   asterisk * or a question mark ? matches slash in normal mode (it
   started out as fnmatch() without FNM_PATHNAME).  Should we warn
   about ":(glob)" if somebody asks for "foo*", "*foo", or
   "foo*bar".  If not, why shouldn't?

 - Thers is no explicit magic that says "there is no magic" to
   countermand such a DWIM.