Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] pathspec labels [WAS: submodule groups]

Stefan Beller [off-list ref] 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.