Re: safe.directory wildcards

From: Chris Torek <chris.torek@gmail.com>
Date: May 31, 2024, 14:35 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPx1GvcNF1_te7v3K0bN1s1OaR8JwHTgfQnoKV_tapz6qzbX7Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZlmH1CFZWHokAqso@tanuki>

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 1:18 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:02:16AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > I am reluctant to use wildmatch() but I would expect that in
> > practice "leading path matches" (in other words, "everything under
> > this directory is OK") is sufficient, perhaps?
>
> Is there any particular reason why you don't want to use wildmatch?
> I'd think it to be a natural fit here, and it would provide a superset
> of functionality provided by leading paths, only.

I have to agree with Patrick here that wildmatch would not be surprising. If the concern is that it might be accidentally dangerous, perhaps requiring one to set two knobs might suffice?

Of course I've also thought at many times that Mercurial's "syntax: glob" and "syntax: whatever" rules were a good idea, although not necessarily that particular notation. Perhaps "safe.literal.directory" (aka safe.directory) and "safe.glob.directory"?

Chris