Ivan Shapovalov <intelfx@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Add `config.exclude` to configure "always excluded" files (same as `-e` > on the command line), and `--remove-excluded` (intentionally without a > short form) to "REALLY remove everything, dammit!" > > This might seem like euphemism treadmill, but there is a specific > use-case for all of the exclusion methods and options: > > .gitignore: files that _the project_ does not want to track or touch > (build artifacts) > clean.exclude: files that _the user_ does not want to track or touch > (IDE configuration) > git clean -x: remove build artifacts, but keep precious files > (when a pristine build is desired) > git clean -x --remove-excluded: > remove everything, including precious files > (e.g. for redistribution) > > Signed-off-by: Ivan Shapovalov <intelfx@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/config/clean.txt | 11 +++++++++++ > Documentation/git-clean.txt | 22 +++++++++++++++------- > builtin/clean.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- > 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) A few comments on the proposed semantics. - It is questionable to throw paths that match command line "-e" patterns into the 'precious' class. It breaks backward compatibility and established end-user expectations, doesn't it? - It is nice to see that an effort is made to sift "excluded" into two classes. The traditional "ignored/excluded are expendable, so "git clean" will remove them, "git switch", when path F is excluded and there is a file F, would remove it when it needs to check out a tree that has paths under directory F. "git add F" and "git add ." would not add it unless forced. We would want another class of files `precious` that are ignored in the same sense by "git add", but yet excempt from removal by "git clean" and things like "git switch". - On the other hand, it is a good idea to use a new source of patterns that the command never paid attention to, like a new configuration variable. Since nobody has ever used it for "excluded and expendable", there is no risk of breaking end-user expectations. - This particular implementation falls far short of the ideal of "precious files" class, though. Since "git clean" is the only thing that pays attention to clean.exclude, "git add ." would happily add those paths that match the pattern, and "git switch" to check out a directory whose pathname matches the pattern would happily nuke a precious file that is in the working tree at that path. Earlier discussions proposed extended syntax added to .gitignore mechanism and relevant codepaths, not just "git clean", all pay attention to the new "precious" paths, but one idea proposed by this series that is much better than the previous designs is the use of separate sources of patterns---we do not have to worry about backward compatibility issues at all with that design. In my earlier review, I said it was clever to recognize that precious would be of personal nature, but I now realize that there are valid reasons why projects may _know_ what paths are precious and would want to distribute that knowledge to its participants. For example, our project would benefit from having config.mak marked as precious for everybody, so that nobody commits such a file by mistake and then ask us to pull from them. As a configuration variable does not propagate across repositories by design, it would not work as a way for the project to share its idea of what paths are in the "precious" class, so in addition to the clean.exclude (which probably is a bad name, as (1) we want not just clean but things like add and switch also pay attention to it, and (2) the class it defines is distinct from "exclude", and would want to have the word "precious" in it) variable, we'd probably need to have a way to record them in tracked files, either in .gitignore files using some extended syntax, or separate .gitprecious files. Thanks.
