Re: [RFC] Define "precious" attribute and support it in `git clean`

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 29, 2023, 06:44 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BGZHUQz5Bnd1oUptKC_j680Vz0zykEGgXw+89W3Tv6hmw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <918D0772-CDEE-4892-828E-BD8A06C3F1F4@icloud.com>

Hi Sebastian,

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:15 AM Sebastian Thiel <sebastian.thiel@icloud.com> wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

>
> On 16 Oct 2023, at 8:02, Sebastian Thiel wrote:
>
> > I don't know if this time will be different as I can only offer to implement
> > the syntax adjustment, whatever that might be (possibly after validating
> > the candidate against a corpus of repositories), along with the update
> > to `git clean` so it leaves precious files alone by default and a new flag
> > to also remove precious files.
>
> I am happy to announce this feature can now be contributed in full by me once
> you give it a go. This would mean that the entirety of `git` would become
> aware of precious files over time.
>
> To my mind, and probably out of ignorance, it seems that once the syntax is
> decided on it's possible for the implementation to start. From there I could
> use Elijah's analysis to know which parts of git to make aware of precious files
> in addition to `git clean`.
>
> I am definitely looking forward to hearing from you :).

So, we typically don't pre-approve patches/features. Junio described this recently at [1].

However, starting things out with an RFC, as you've done, is certainly a good first step to gauge whether folks think a feature is useful.

Occasionally, when the feature is bigger or touches lots of areas of
the code, people will even write up a design document, and first get a
review on the document, which then streamlines later reviews since we
have some of the high-level aspects agreed to.  Some examples:
  * Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt
  * Documentation/technical/sparse-checkout.txt
  * Documentation/technical/sparse-index.txt
Each of which are in various stages between "these are ideas we think
are good and our plans to get there" to "most of this document has
since been implemented".  There are others in that directory too,
though not everything in that directory is a planning document; some
of the files are simply documentation of what already exists.

Anyway, creating a similar planning document and covering the various cases I mentioned would likely be a very useful next step here. I did note that multiple ideas have been presented in this thread about the syntax for specifying precious files, and it'd be good to nail one down. It would also be nice to see proposed answers to the several cases I brought up (some of which Junio answered, others of which I also have potential answers for so I could potentially help you craft this document, and a few others that someone else would need to fill in). Sometimes we also want to cover pros/cons of the approaches we have decided upon, in part because others may come along later and if they discover a new pro or con that we haven't thought of, then we may need to rethink the plan.

Hope that helps, Elijah

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq8r9ommyt.fsf@gitster.g/