Re: [RFC PATCH] Introduce "precious" file concept

From: Per Lundberg <per.lundberg@hibox.tv>
Date: Nov 27, 2018, 09:43 UTC
Message-ID: <f6aad4a2-8cb4-acc2-af9b-9c9c82059b89@hibox.tv>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8Ck7CZ7JWaN6ark=wrAngywJJh76y-FvJ87gE2ckVS8pg@mail.gmail.com>

On 11/26/18 5:55 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:47 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Some of the solutions overlap with this thing you want, but I think it's
>> worth keeping the distinction between the two in mind.
> 
> On the other hand all use cases should be considered. It's going to be
> a mess to have "trashable" attribute that applies to some commands
> while "precious" to some others (and even worse when they overlap,
> imagine having to define both in .gitattributes)

Agree - I think it would be a very bad idea to have a "mix" of both trashable and precious. IMO, we should try to find which one of these concepts suits most general use cases best and causes less churn for existing scripts/users' existing "semantic expectations", and pick that one. -- Per Lundberg