Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] pathspec labels [WAS: submodule groups]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> And we want to have both "label=A B C" and attr:label=A B C" or *just* the
> attr query?

I think the choice at this point is between supporting just "label=A
B C" or supporting just "attr:eol=crlf text=auto !diff".

I think "attr:label=A" is merely a degenerated case of the latter.

> We should not allow the user to add arbitrary attributes (i.e. labels).

Hmph, why not?

> Instead each of the "attr for labeling purposes" needs to follow a clear scheme
> that allows us to add attributes later on that are outside of that scheme.

That was my initial reaction when I saw Duy's "attr:crlf=auto" (by
the way, there is no such setting; crlf should be one of TRUE, UNSET
or set to string "input") idea.  But I do not think of a good
argument to justify that arbitrary attributes are not allowed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]