Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes:
> This is another case for using ':' instead of '='.
> So I think ':' is better for this future enhancement.
>
> Also this future enhancement may ask for
>
> git ls-files ":(attr:label=foo)"
>
> or
>
> git ls-files ":(attr:-label)"
>
> so the user can circumvent the warn and ignore strategy. :(
That is exactly what we want, I would say, if we want to accept
"arbitrary set of attributes with their states".
The "warn and ignore" comes only from "with '(:label=X Y Z)', we
inspect attributes X, Y and Z and insist them to be set to true; it
is a configuration error to set the label to anything but a string",
and accepting "arbitrary set of attributes with their states" makes
it moot (as I said earlier in $gmane/294776).
So are we leaning towards ":(attr:<state>)", where <state> is one of
var=value
var
-var
!var
now? It makes the pathspec magic parser a bit more complex (and I
am not sure if we have to worry too much about quoting "value" part
to allow arbitrary sequence of bytes), though.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
