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

From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Date: Oct 14, 2023, 05:59 UTC
Message-ID: <ZSouSI_zPusOefsv@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqttqytnqb.fsf@gitster.g>

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 10:02:20AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> Sebastian Thiel <sebastian.thiel@icloud.com> writes:
> 
> > I'd like to propose adding a new standard gitattribute "precious".
> 
> ;-).
> 
> Over the years, I've seen many times scenarios that would have been
> helped if we had not just "tracked? ignored? unignored?" but also
> the fourth kind [*].  The word "ignored" (or "excluded") has always
> meant "not tracked, not to be tracked, and expendable" to Git, and
> "ignored but unexpendable" class was missing.  I even used the term
> "precious" myself in those discussions.  At the concept level, I
> support the effort 100%, but as always, the devil will be in the
> details.

"I've already wanted this for years" is, honestly, the best response we could *possibly* have hoped for.

Show 9 quoted lines

> Scenarios that people wished for "precious" traditionally have been
> 
>  * You are working on 'master'.  You have in your .gitignore or
>    .git/info/exclude a line to ignore path A, and have random
>    scribbles in a throw-away file there.  There is another branch
>    'seen', where they added some tracked contents at path A/B.  You
>    do "git checkout seen" and your file A that is an expendable file,
>    because it is listed as ignored in .git/info/exclude, is removed
>    to make room for creating A/B.

Ouch, I hadn't even thought about the issue of branch-switching overwriting a file like that, but that's another great reason to have "precious". (I've been thinking about "precious" as primarily to protect files like `.config`, where they'd be unlikely to be checked in on any branch because they have an established purpose in the project. Though, of course, people *do* sometimes check in `.config` files in special-purpose branches that aren't meant for upstreaming.)

Show 9 quoted lines

>  * Similar situation, but this time, 'seen' branch added a tracked
>    contents at path A.  Again, "git checkout seen" will discard the
>    expendable file A and replace it with tracked contents.
> 
>  * Instead of "git checkout", you decide to merge the branch 'seen'
>    to the checkout of 'master', where you have an ignored path A.
>    Because merging 'seen' would need to bring the tracked contents
>    of either A/B (in the first scenario above) or A (in the second
>    scenario), your "expendable" A will be removed to make room.

+1

Show 18 quoted lines

> In previous discussions, nobody was disturbed that "git clean" was
> unaware of the "precious" class, but if we were to have the
> "precious" class in addition to "ignored" aka "expendable", I would
> not oppose to teach "git clean" about it, too.
> 
> There was an early and rough design draft there in
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/7vipsnar23.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/
> 
> which probably is worth a read, too.
> 
> Even though I referred to the precious _attribute_ in some of these
> discussions, between the attribute mechanism and the ignore
> mechanism, I am actually leaning toward suggesting to extend the
> exclude/ignore mechanism to introduce the "precious" class.  That
> way, we can avoid possible snafu arising from marking a path in
> .gitignore as ignored, and in .gitattrbutes as precious, and have to
> figure out how these two settings are to work together.

Sounds reasonable.

> In any case, the "precious" paths are expected to be small minority
> of what people never want to "git add" or "git commit", so coming up
> with a special syntax to be used in .gitignore, even if that special
> syntax is ugly and cumbersome to type, would be perfectly OK.

[Following up both to this and to Sebastian's response.]

One potentially important question: should the behavior of old git be to treat precious files as ignored, or as not-ignored? If the syntax were something like

$.config

then old git would treat the file as not-ignored. If the syntax were something like

$precious .config

then old git would treat the file as ignored.

Seems like it would be obtrusive if `git status` in old git showed the file, and `git add .` in old git added it.