From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A76C31F19A for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 16:39:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="DWn608ES" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E128E95 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D511A7DB9; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 12:39:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=TeSDM/XO4k1Xz5kd9+OmLuLY0HErvSUtwqX/Ic /J6F4=; b=DWn608ESuvw9YzzkKM+bOxsQQkFqwvZ9lUlYS3WrOVVGF39YblwFfr 3MNjYe1gxj4ESEU+q6ySZi78u2/6Ltx8Vw7Ny33Ynn+LaqAiyrWGsy3H6ZRPj7Zu WxotKMdY4rj4IQPJ0bjn/n/aD4OiamTOIPaThofdhsmPE/BEXfTfM= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D51C1A7DB8; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 12:39:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.153.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A23301A7DB7; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 12:39:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Sebastian Thiel Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett , Kristoffer Haugsbakk Subject: Re: [RFC] Define "precious" attribute and support it in `git clean` In-Reply-To: <9C4A2AFD-AAA2-4ABA-8A8B-2133FD870366@icloud.com> (Sebastian Thiel's message of "Fri, 13 Oct 2023 11:09:27 +0200") References: <79901E6C-9839-4AB2-9360-9EBCA1AAE549@icloud.com> <0E44CB2C-57F2-4075-95BE-60FBFDD3CEE2@icloud.com> <9C4A2AFD-AAA2-4ABA-8A8B-2133FD870366@icloud.com> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:39:53 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 235E17DA-69E7-11EE-B88A-78DCEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Sebastian Thiel writes: > But if there is now a prefix, I feel that it might as well be chosen so that it > is easier to remember and/or less likely to cause conflicts. Another criteria is that it is not very often used in real pathnames, of course, and '!' and '$' are good ones. Come to think of it, we might be able to retrofit '!' without too much damage. Something like "!unignored" is now a deprecated but still supported way to say "!!unignored", "!*precious" is new, and "\!anything" is a pathname that begins with '!'. > Yes, I think my paragraph above is exactly that but with examples to practice > the new syntax-proposal. OK.