From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1053320248 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:07:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727370AbfBVSHq (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:07:46 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f66.google.com ([209.85.221.66]:40139 "EHLO mail-wr1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725986AbfBVSHq (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:07:46 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f66.google.com with SMTP id q1so3335381wrp.7 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:07:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=rWlA6C148azDzPkoorAVpadRNtrhvIpvyPF5RdZ45wk=; b=BkaMLNrmYVP92R3Xlwysy2MjSUdVp/waWLJiJoIQ8zQDkjKOeNS4MEZUF64oPtEIGt I9lVxSp7X6IOE+1kAxTtzBYO4+XZMrL/ZVONUDpYKlx7eEjB5DMt4kI2arYNLftBh0wl FMTUZZGzGC5idXkksHmvOiVTG/bFa9IstcKkkRhYBXHZ8ZSKed9NIWeJjSQI2U2a9Y3Q UDLLC88v7KotbfadC5HbsBvNM/akXgdQDAXraBTJlYMti9cjcK+Wh2koKmp9Z6mClz4/ DSyd4as8zJXBZVJBDcixQE8K9VUAu1te/Dil7vtwaHKvG0n57EE9gAYyre8s9/qJGgu9 WKmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=rWlA6C148azDzPkoorAVpadRNtrhvIpvyPF5RdZ45wk=; b=tRiupZW7IsuaX8BSRa3RW5jsgRCAGlEJhKUUDaqo/PZW0W4tc5HWlRU3I/iOzhN/Nd Q9iogbDVA2SnxFZUkGZO/Q2pA8C9MaRSZA6TPQGezRTkiwvYkQ9AqqmJPp4E4Nj3qK/g HJS7kbb3o6yUG68A8GKCisk458wzmEVtFVBP1yzPoumGlYge8DqGVZrdK7ZgC3Z7TMbu pep9rYHjwPtaYEzet7Yoy+yKg+9T4cpGdov+mwtnDBLLseVWWjE68nkHeN7xBKYyihB5 D00dSvTKs0ikWXUQ1W69SAJUbeaObW+OXKKg280kY9HyJ6gCroSOV0GbTH4Kzw01Avt4 9URw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuYwYmmo6KnOLxScV0G32WolREC7N7+YpqLpUw2Drux3TE3DeIsw a0FYTKOMjqrMALJ0kriN5yU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZjtl/vGPRs9MhyOTTYwNb/CTDew8LL+AAomQwDGb49Jp67TNHA5BLiZAJzYK2rcj/TuZk93w== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6112:: with SMTP id v18mr3766121wrt.207.1550858864756; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:07:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (112.68.155.104.bc.googleusercontent.com. [104.155.68.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o18sm5554531wrg.40.2019.02.22.10.07.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:07:43 -0800 (PST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Duy Nguyen Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Git Mailing List , Per Lundberg , Steffen Jost , Joshua Jensen , Matthieu Moy , Clemens Buchacher , Holger Hellmuth , Kevin Ballard Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Introduce "precious" file concept References: <20190216114938.18843-1-pclouds@gmail.com> <20190216114938.18843-2-pclouds@gmail.com> <87wolzo7a1.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <87h8cy6cme.fsf@evledraar.booking.com> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:07:43 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Duy Nguyen's message of "Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:35:44 +0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Duy Nguyen writes: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:39 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > So now you would need to >> > add more or less the same set of ignore rules in .gitattributes to >> > mark them trashable, and gitignore/gitattributes rules are not exactly >> > compatible, you can't just blindly copy them over. Every time you add >> > one more .gitignore rule, there's a good chance you need to add a >> > similar rule for trashable attribute. >> >> I am not sure why you would even need to _duplicate_. >> >> Are you saying for each and every rule that specify "ignored and >> expendable" in .gitignore there always will be "ignored but >> precious" exception that match the pattern? Given that we have been >> OK for so long without even needing "precious", I find it somewhat >> unrealistic to assume so. > > If all ignored files are now redefined as precious and we mark them > expendable with trashable attribute, then we need to duplicate most of > the rules. The "precious" attribute of course does not have this > problem since precious-and-ignored files should be rare. Ah, so you are saying that ignored (the traditional one we always had) plus precious is a better combination than ignored (repurposed to mean ignored-but-precious) plus trashable, because the latter will cause people configure with a lot of duplication? If that is the case, I'd agree ;-)