Re: [PATCH] Use clean.requireforce to protect untracked files.

From: Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 3, 2011, 16:20 UTC
Message-ID: <4DE909D5.9050805@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vipsnar23.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

I do agree there are ignored-but-precious type of files exist in practice. Introducing such ignored-but-precious class through attributes or .gitignore is fine, and the definition of the class can broadcast to others through .gitattributes or .gitignore, it's cool. But it sounds a bit complicated.

This afternoon's hack on config variable "clean.requestForce" feets my needs, but it also has drawbacks:

1. Define a global "clean.requestForce" variable like this:

    $ git config --global clean.requestForce LockIgnored

2. Then in one repository,

    * You can : git clean -f
    * But you cannot : git clean -f -x

3. If want to override such global setting, simply

    $ git config clean.requestForce true

The side-effect of this hack is that an unhacked git will complain:

    fatal: bad config value for 'clean.requireforce' in .git/config

于 11-6-3 下午11:11, Junio C Hamano 写道:

Show 52 quoted lines

> Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Untracked files may be significant for certain repositories, but if run the
>> command "git clean -fdx" by accident, all untracked files will be lost.
> 
> Don't add -x without thinking, then. It is the way to tell the command "I
> want to remove all the untracked files and I REALLY MEAN IT".  It is often
> used to say "I do not trust Makefile and I want to remove what 'make
> clean' would leave behind".
> 
> A slightly related tangent is that we only have three classes of paths:
> 
>  - tracked ones
>  - untracked ones, where there are two subclasses
>    - unignored ones (e.g. new source file you haven't added)
>    - ignored ones (e.g. build artifacts like *.o files)
> 
> and because of that, the general design is to consider "ignored" files
> expendable during various operations. Sometimes people deliberately "ignore"
> files that they consider not expendable, which is (by today's definition)
> a wrong thing to do, but I think in the longer term we should add a way to
> mark them as "ignored but precious".
> 
>   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/172818/focus=172846
> 
> Nobody has designed how this fourth class should behave (and how the
> behaviour of the "ignored" should change, if any) yet, but a rough outline
> would probably be:
> 
>  - precious files are the ones that are ignored (by today's definition,
>    i.e. .gitignore mechanism consideres they are ignored) but marked as
>    "precious" in some other way [*1*]. They will
> 
>    - not appear in "Untracked files:" section in "git status" output;
>    - not be added by "git add" without "-f", just like other ignored files;
>    - not be overwritten or removed to make room while switching branches;
>    - not be removed with "clean -f -x" [*2*].
> 
>  - ignored files will stay to be "expendable".
> 
> I suspect there may be some codepaths that incorrectly treat them as not
> expendable, and protect their lossage. We would want to fix them after we
> introduce the "precious" class.
> 
> [Footnotes]
> 
> *1* We could invent a way to sneak such entries in .gitignore, but I am
> inclined to think it would be cleaner to define "precious" attribute and
> let the attributes mechanism handle this.
> 
> *2* This is just off the top of my head without thinking things
> through. It might turn out that it makes more sense ot remove them.

-- 
蒋鑫

北京群英汇信息技术有限公司
邮件: worldhello.net@gmail.com
网址: http://www.ossxp.com/
　　  http://blog.ossxp.com/
电话: 010-51262007, 13910430470
传真: 010-51262007