On Mon, Nov 26 2018, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:34 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 26 2018, Duy Nguyen wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:30 AM Per Lundberg <per.lundberg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/13/18 1:22 AM, brian m. carlson wrote: >> >> > This is going to totally hose automation. My last job had files which >> >> > might move from tracked to untracked (a file that had become generated), >> >> > and long-running CI and build systems would need to be able to check out >> >> > one status and switch to the other. Your proposed change will prevent >> >> > those systems from working, whereas they previously did. >> >> > >> >> > I agree that your proposal would have been a better design originally, >> >> > but breaking the way automated systems currently work is probably going >> >> > to be a dealbreaker. >> >> >> >> How about something like this: >> >> >> >> 1. Introduce a concept with "garbage" files, which git is "permitted to >> >> delete" without prompting. >> >> >> >> 2. Retain the current default, i.e. "ignored files are garbage" for now, >> >> making the new behavior _opt in_ to avoid breaking automated >> >> systems/existing scripts for anyone. Put the setting for this behind a >> >> new core.* config flag. >> >> >> >> 3. In the plan for version 3.0 (a new major version where some breakage >> >> can be tolerable, according to Semantic Versioning), change the default >> >> so that "only explicit garbage is garbage". Include very clear notices >> >> of this in the release notes. The config flag is retained, but its >> >> default changes from true->false or vice versa. People who dislike the >> >> new behavior can easily change back to the 2.x semantics. >> > >> > How does this garbage thing interact with "git clean -x"? My >> > interpretation of this flag/attribute is that at version 3.0 by >> > default all ignored files are _not_ garbage, so "git clean -x" should >> > not remove any of them. Which is weird because most of ignored files >> > are like *.o that should be removed. >> > >> > I also need to mark "precious" on untracked or even tracked files (*). >> > Not sure how this "garbage" attribute interacts with that. >> > >> > (*) I was hoping I could get the idea [1] implemented in somewhat good >> > shape before presenting here. But I'm a bit slow on that front. So >> > yeah this "precious" on untracked/tracked thingy may be even >> > irrelevant if the patch series will be rejected. >> >> I think a garbage (or trashable) flag, if implemented, wouldn't need any >> special case in git-clean, i.e. -x would remove all untracked files, >> whether ignored or garbage/trashable. That's what my patch to implement >> it does: >> https://public-inbox.org/git/87zhuf3gs0.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> I think that makes sense. Users running "git clean" have "--dry-run" and >> unlike "checkout a branch" or "merge this commit" where we'll now shred >> data implicitly it's obvious that git-clean is going to shred your data. > > Then that't not what I want. If I'm going to mark to keep "config.mak" > around, I'm not going to carefully move it away before doing "git > clean -fdx" then move it back. No "git clean --dry-run" telling me to > make a backup of config.mak is no good. Understood. I mean this in the context of solving the problem users have with running otherwise non-data-destroying commands like "checkout" and "merge" and getting their data destroyed, which is overwhelmingly why this topic gets resurrected. Some of the solutions overlap with this thing you want, but I think it's worth keeping the distinction between the two in mind. I.e. I can imagine us finding some acceptable solution to the data shredding problem that doesn't implement this mode for "git-clean", or the other way around.
