From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 21:50:57 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] pathspec labels [WAS: submodule groups] Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Stefan Beller 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.