Re: [PATCH 1/1] Introduce "precious" file concept

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Feb 16 2019, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:

[Re-CC some people involved the last time around]

> A new attribute "precious" is added to indicate that certain files
> have valuable content and should not be easily discarded even if they
> are ignored or untracked.
>
> So far there are one part of Git that are made aware of precious
> files: "git clean" will leave precious files alone.

Thanks for bringing this up again. There were also some patches recently
to save away clobbered files, do you/anyone else have any end goal in
mind here that combines this & that, or some other thing I may not have
kept up with?

My commentary on this whole thing is basically a repeat of what I said
in https://public-inbox.org/git/87wop0yvxv.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/

I.e. we have a definite problem here somewhere, and there is some
solution, but this patch feels a bit like navigating that maze in the
dark without a map.

We had users report that the likes of "pull" were eating their data, but
now with this iteration of "precious" only impacting "clean" the only
problem anyone with the current semantics is still left unaddressed. My
memory (I may be wrong) is that "clean" was just brought up (by you?) as
a "what about this other related case?" in that whole discussion.

So as noted in the E-Mail linked above I think the first step should be
to enumerate/document/test the cases where we're now eating data
implicitly, and discuss how that relates to the semantics we desired
when the data-eating behavior was first introduced (as noted in E-Mails
linked from the above, my own preliminary digging seems to reveal there
isn't much of a relationship between the two).

Only when we have that list of XYZ cases we're supporting now, and can
see that XYZ is so important to maintain backwards compatibility for
that we can't change it should way say "we eat your data by default
because XYZ is so useful/backcompat, set 'precious' ...".

But right now we don't even have the list of XYZ or tests for them (as
my RFC "garbage" attribute patch revealed). So this whole thing still
feels like jumping three steps ahead to me in terms of addressing *that*
issue, but perhaps you have some orthogonal use-case in mind for this?