On 7/26/22 2:19 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 26 2022, Derrick Stolee wrote: > >> On 7/26/2022 10:44 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >>> But I think this change is going about it the wrong way, let's have a >>> list of refs that Git knows about as magical, instead of assuming that >>> we can ignore everything that's not on a small list of things we're >>> including. >>> >>> Wouldn't that give you what you want, and not exclude these sorts of >>> custom refs unexpectedly for users? >> >> Instead of keeping track of an ever-growing list of exclusions, instead >> making a clear list of "this is what most users will want for their >> decorations" is a better approach. >> >> Users who know how to create custom refs outside of this space have the >> capability to figure out how to show their special refs. My general ideas >> for designing these kinds of features is to have a default that is focused >> on the typical user while giving config options for experts to tweak those >> defaults. >> >> You're right that this series perhaps leaves something to be desired in >> that second part, since there isn't an easy _config-based_ way to enable >> all decorations (or a small additional subset). > > Yes, but this is just side-stepping the issue. Your X-Y problem is that > you want to exclude certain refs that we're specifically creating. > > I think that's fair enough, but I don't see why we're not specifically > excluding just those then. I'm advocating that we make a one-time change to have a set of "known useful refs" as showing up in the decorations. Perhaps some users (like yourself) need to react to that change, but it happens _once_. Changing the rules repeatedly as new "hidden" namespaces are added is more likely to cause confusion multiple times. Thanks, -Stolee
