I've had enough. Please drop this nd/precious. I'm not updating it anymore. On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 4:54 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 09 2019, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: > > > Here's the replacement patch that keeps "git clean" behavior the same > > as before and only checks 'precious' attribute when --keep-precous is > > specified. > > Cool to have the expected interaction with -x. Thanks. > > > -'git clean' [-d] [-f] [-i] [-n] [-q] [-e <pattern>] [-x | -X] [--] <path>... > > +'git clean' [<options>] [-d] [-f] [-i] [-n] [-x | -X] [--] <path>... > > For e.g. git-status(1) we just say: > > git status [<options>...] [--] [<pathspec>...] > > And for git-add(1) we do: > > git add [--verbose | -v] <very long exhaustive list of options > spanning 4 lines omitted> > > > Seems we should do one or the other here, i.e. either just add > --keep-precious to the list, or leave it at just: > > git clean [<options>...] [--] [<pathspec>...] > > > +This attribute is set on files to indicate that their content is > > +valuable. Some commands will behave slightly different on precious > > +files. linkgit:git-clean[1] may leave precious files alone. > > As noted upthread I think it's better to start with "clean" and > "--keep-noclean", we can always alias it to "precious" later without > squatting on that more general term when we (IMO) don't have the full > picture yet & know if we even want that... > > But anyway, with that out of the way and assuming this is kept-as is > seems we could document this better if we're going to keep "precious", > e.g. maybe: > > This attribute is set on files to indicate that they're important > while not being tracked. This attribute is experimental and subject > to future change as more commands are changed to support it. > > Now it's only supported by linkgit:git-clean[1] which'll skip > cleaning files marked ith `precious` when given the > `--keep-precious` option. This can be useful in combination with > linkgit:gitignore[5] to e.g. mark `*.o` build assets as both ignored > and precious. > > I.e. say it's still early days, that it's "experimental" (not insisting > on that phrasing, but somehow signaling to users that if they set this > now it may do new/unexpected things in the future), and briefly describe > how it works with "clean" and what the main intended use-case is. > > > +test_expect_success 'git clean -xd --keep-precious leaves precious files alone' ' > > + git init precious && > > + ( > > + cd precious && > > + test_commit one && > > + cat >.gitignore <<-\EOF && > > + *.o > > + *.mak > > + EOF > > + cat >.gitattributes <<-\EOF && > > + *.mak precious > > + .gitattributes precious > > + *.precious precious > > + EOF > > + mkdir sub && > > + touch one.o sub/two.o one.mak sub/two.mak && > > + touch one.untracked two.precious sub/also.precious && > > + git clean -fdx --keep-precious && > > + test_path_is_missing one.o && > > + test_path_is_missing sub/two.o && > > + test_path_is_missing one.untracked && > > + test_path_is_file .gitattributes && > > + test_path_is_file one.mak && > > + test_path_is_file sub/two.mak && > > + test_path_is_file two.precious && > > + test_path_is_file sub/also.precious > > + ) > > +' > > AFAICT this is the first attribute intended purely to be set on files > that aren't tracked. I wonder if we should test for setting it on files > that are tracked, and whether we should e.g. warn about that? Maybe not, > but just raising it since I don't think it was discussed already... -- Duy
