Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] pathspec labels [WAS: submodule groups]
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 16, 2016, 21:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqh9dx1xku.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAGZ79kZuMdWdw2kcfs_P-_Ax1zXpKNHqMjNL80hBj3=SSp2zSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
> And we want to have both "label=A B C" and attr:label=A B C" or *just* the > attr query?
I think the choice at this point is between supporting just "label=A B C" or supporting just "attr:eol=crlf text=auto !diff".
I think "attr:label=A" is merely a degenerated case of the latter.
> We should not allow the user to add arbitrary attributes (i.e. labels).
Hmph, why not?
> Instead each of the "attr for labeling purposes" needs to follow a clear scheme > that allows us to add attributes later on that are outside of that scheme.
That was my initial reaction when I saw Duy's "attr:crlf=auto" (by the way, there is no such setting; crlf should be one of TRUE, UNSET or set to string "input") idea. But I do not think of a good argument to justify that arbitrary attributes are not allowed.