Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] pathspec labels [WAS: submodule groups]

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: May 16, 2016, 00:03 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8BU-zym6Nkmbs-jk66af1LwHaasybHBvBUJscU=eBOkQA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqfutj5d73.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 2:33 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Instead of putting everything in under the same attribute name
>>> "label", make one attribute per label? Would this work?
>>>
>>> *.[ch] c-group code-group
>>
>> The attribute subsystem expects that there will not be unbounded
>> large number of attributes, so this is not a good direction to go.
>
> Having said that, I do not mind too much if it turns out that it is
> necessary to use an unbounded set of random attributes to solve a
> specific problem, if the use case is good.

I only have a vague idea so far, it seems to me a good idea to be able to specify "binary-marked paths" or "filter attached paths" from pathspec. We can already do this with scripts, but we need to be very careful about quoting. And if it's pathspec it can be combined with other magic (most likely negation)

Show 11 quoted lines

> But even then, in order to avoid confusion and name clashes, I'd
> prefer to see more like
>
>         *.[ch] group-c group-code
>
> that is matched by
>
>         git cmd ':(group:c code)
>
> i.e. reserve a single prefix that is not and will not be used for
> other purposes.

For my above use case, i can still define macro group-binary that is an alias of binary to get around this. So it's ok.

-- 
Duy