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

From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Date: Oct 12, 2023, 09:04 UTC
Message-ID: <ZSe2rvIWcNrrp-9R@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <25b25127-aa10-4179-bc02-065fe12d01ef@app.fastmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 09:10:34PM +0200, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

>  Hi Josh
> 
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023, at 16:10, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > [snip]
> >
> > While I'd love for it to default to that and require an extra option to
> > clean away precious files, I'd expect that that would break people's
> > workflows and finger memory. If someone expects `git clean -x -d -f` to
> > clean away everything, including `.config`, and then it leaves some
> > files in place, that seems likely to cause problems. (Leaving aside that
> > it might break scripted workflows.)
> >
> > It seems safer to keep the existing behavior for existing options, and
> > add a new option for "remove everything except precious files".
> 
> What's a scenario where it breaks? I'm guessing:
> 
> 1. Someone clones a project
> 2. That project has precious files marked via `.gitattributes`
> 3. They later do a `clean`
> 4. The precious files are left alone even though they expected them to be
>    deleted; they don't check what `clean` did (it deletes everything
>    untracked (they expect) so nothing to check)
> 5. This hurts them somehow

The scenario I had in mind was:

- Project has ignored files; git doesn't have a concept of "precious"
- Users expect that `git clean -x -d -f` deletes everything that isn't
  part of the latest commit.
- Git introduces the concept of "precious"
- Project adopts "precious" and marks some of its ignored files as
  "precious" instead
- Users' finger-macros around `git clean` stop cleaning up files they
  expected to be cleaned.

That said, given Junio's response I'm no longer concerned about this scenario.