On Thu, Apr 04 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 5:29 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> * nd/precious (2019-04-01) 1 commit >>> - Introduce "precious" file concept >>> >>> "git clean" learned to pay attention to the 'precious' attributes >>> and keep untracked paths with the attribute instead of removing. >>> >>> Will merge to 'next'. >> >> There was no conclusion from the last thread if I remember correctly >> and I kind of gave up on it. If you want to include anyway, should we >> go for a more specific attribute (e.g. "clean") and leave "precious" >> for later whenever it's better defined? > > I'd rather pick between (1) using the final name for the concept we > want to eventually achieve, i.e. "precious", and starting small, > i.e. "initially, only git-clean knows about it", or (2) doing > nothing. Per-command 'precious-this', 'precious-that' that would be > left as interface wart for years is not a pretty sight I want to > see. I think we shouldn't squat "precious" in general without seeing where we want to go with it, which I tried to sum up in https://public-inbox.org/git/87ftsi68ke.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ But aside from that larger discussion, I see no problem with having some "+clean" or "-clean" attribute with basically Duy's current patch in nd/precious with the equivalent of "s/precious/clean/". Duy suggested this in https://public-inbox.org/git/CACsJy8C377NmLv9edNYjinKAQf-P1y5+Nwhdj3vRkz_E__x43Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I see the desire to keep some untracked stuff you know about as different from what amounts to a workaround for merge/checkout inadvertently stomping on your checkout and shredding your data, without (as noted in my upthread summary) us having the full picture of whether that's even needed as a permanent configurable workaround, or we could "just" fix that "bug". But on the subject on the implementation of nd/precious (assuming s/precious/clean/) I'm concerned that this "I want to keep *.o on 'git-clean'" use-case leaves us with no way to do what you can now do with: git clean -dxff Now the git-clean documentation promises: "Cleans [...] files that are not under version control" And, for -x: "Don’t use the [repository's] ignore rules[...]This allows removing all untracked files, including build products" Except now we have a feature that's ostensibly exactly for this "build products" use-case, but doesn't yield to the -x option, which we've documented as being the escape hatch for exactly that sort of thing. In my mind "clean" has two fundamentally different use-cases. a) I made this repo and trust its .gitignore file b) I didn't make it/don't trust it and/or I just want to be guaranteed to get the exact same checkout a "git clone" would give me. Now you can do "git clean -dxff" (and if submodules init && ...) for "b", but the "precious" patch in the current form completely breaks "b" to satisfy a use-case of "a". I think we should at the very least have a "-xx" like "-ff" now as an escape hatch, but more conservatively shouldn't be breaking the reasonable assumption a user of "-x" could make so far, which is "ignore repo config, just wipe it all".
