On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:35 PM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 02:11:51PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > By the way (possible bikeshedding ahead), "seed anonymous" seems > > overly technical. I wonder if a name such as > > '--anonymize-to=<from>[:<to>]' might be clearer and easier for people > > to understand. > > I wrestled with the name, and I agree "seed" is overly technical. And I > came up with many similar variations of "anonymize-to", but they all > seemed ambiguous (e.g., it could be "to" a file that we're storing the > data in). > > Perhaps "--anonymize-map" would be less technical? That's not too bad. It is better than --seed-anonymized. I haven't come up with any name which improves upon it. > > In fact, in an earlier email, I asked whether --seed-anonymized should > > imply --anonymize. Thinking further on this, I wonder if we even need > > the second option name. It should be possible to overload the existing > > --anonymize to handle all functions. For instance: > > > > git fast-export --all \ > > --anonymize=foo.c:secret.c \ > > --anonymize=mybranch >stream > > > > Or is that too cryptic? > > Yeah, that was another one I considered, but it both seemed cryptic > (after all, we're saying what _not_ to anonymize), and it squats on the > "anonymize" option. So imagine we had another option later, like > "anonymize blobs and paths, but not refs", that could easily be > "--anonymize=blobs,path" or "--anonymize=!refs". I'd rather not paint > ourselves in a corner. Okay, makes sense.
