Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I don't think something like the endgame you've described in > https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqzhtwuhpc.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > is ever going to work. Novice git users (the vast majority) are not > going to diligently update both .gitignore and some .gitattribute > mechanism in lockstep. That goes both ways, no? Forcing people to add the same pattern, e.g. *.o, to .gitignore and .gitattribute to say they are expendable, when most of the time they are, is not something you should expect from the normal population. >> I would think that a proper automation needs per-path hint from the >> user and/or the project, not just a single-size-fits-all --force >> option, and "unlike all the *.o ignored files that are expendable, >> this vendor-supplied-object.o is not" is one way to give such a >> per-path hint. >> >>> This would give scripts which relied on our stable plumbing consistent >>> behavior, while helping users who're using our main porcelain not to >>> lose data. I could then add a --force option to the likes of read-tree >>> (on by default), so you could get porcelain-like behavior with >>> --no-force. >> >> At that low level, I suspect that a single size fits all "--force" >> would work even less well. > > Yeah I don't think the one-size-fits-all way out of this is a single > --force flag. Yes, indeed. That's why I prefer the "precious" bit. The system would behave the same way with or without it, but projects (not individual endusers) can take advantage of the feature if they wanted to.
