Re: [PATCH 0/3] revision: refactor ref_excludes to ref_visibility
- From
Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
- Date
- Jun 22, 2023, 12:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ZJREYU0daKlmfjhr@nand.local>
- In-Reply-To
- <ZJRDZ7NhyNpTV8jD@nand.local>
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 08:49:43AM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> I am left wondering: why doesn't the rule pertaining to > refs/heads/foo/baz show up in the included list? Likewise, what happens > with refs/heads/bar/baz/quux? It is a child of an excluded rule, so the > question is which list takes priority. > > Mostly, I am wondering if I am missing something that would explain why > you couldn't modify the above example's excluded list to contain > something like "!refs/heads/bar/baz/quux", eliminating the need for the > include list entirely.
Another potential quirk that I just now thought of: what are the rules for what can go in the include list? Fully qualified references only? Or can we have patterns (e.g. refs/foo/bar/*). Presumably you'd want to have the namespace-stripping operator ^, but not !, since negating an include rule seems to imply that it should be in the exclude list.
Thanks, Taylor