Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> 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 know. I've already said that we do not want proliferation of precious-clean precious-merge precious-yet-another-thing. > ... shouldn't be breaking the reasonable assumption a user of "-x" > could make so far, which is "ignore repo config, just wipe it > all". Yup. I think that is reasonable. To paraphrase (so that you can tell me that I misunderstood you, if that is the case), if we are told to honor only what the index knows, deliberately ignoring the .gitignore file, then we should also ignore .gitattributes that says which ones are ignored-but-precious, as the "precious" attribute is a mere implementation detail of what _could_ have been part of the exclude mechanism (aka ".gitignore") from day one, if we designed the exclude mechanism to support "ignored and expendable" and "ignored and precious" from day one. "clean -x" would certainly have ignored both kinds.
