docs: document use_gitignore in schema reference and guide - #2957
Merged
Conversation
vmaerten
self-requested a review
August 5, 2026 08:46
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
use_gitignoresetting shipped in v3.52.0 (#2773) and is in the JSON schema and changelog, but the schema reference and guide never picked it up, so the only way to find it right now is reading the schema file itself.This adds the root-level and per-task entries to the schema reference (same format as the neighbouring settings, descriptions match the schema.json wording and the actual merge behaviour in
taskfile/ast/taskfile.go) and a short tip in the guide's fingerprinting section, since excluding gitignored build artifacts fromsources/generatesglobs is the main use case.Docs only, no code changes.
Disclosure: I used an AI assistant to help draft this change. I've reviewed and verified it against the implementation and I'm happy to revise anything.