Re: [PATCH 0/3] revision: refactor ref_excludes to ref_visibility

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 08:49:43AM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> I am left wondering: why doesn't the rule pertaining to
> refs/heads/foo/baz show up in the included list? Likewise, what happens
> with refs/heads/bar/baz/quux? It is a child of an excluded rule, so the
> question is which list takes priority.
>
> Mostly, I am wondering if I am missing something that would explain why
> you couldn't modify the above example's excluded list to contain
> something like "!refs/heads/bar/baz/quux", eliminating the need for the
> include list entirely.

Another potential quirk that I just now thought of: what are the rules
for what can go in the include list? Fully qualified references only? Or
can we have patterns (e.g. refs/foo/bar/*). Presumably you'd want to
have the namespace-stripping operator ^, but not !, since negating an
include rule seems to imply that it should be in the exclude list.

Thanks,
Taylor