Re: [hackers] [sbase] [PATCH] Add .gitignore

From: Michael Forney <mforney_AT_mforney.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:53:43 -0700

On 2019-06-17, Quentin Rameau <quinq_AT_fifth.space> wrote:
>> On 2019-06-17, Quentin Rameau <quinq_AT_fifth.space> wrote:
>> >> How do you deal with ~250 lines of "Untracked files:" in the `git
>> >> status` output?

Can you answer this question? I'm curious why this doesn't obstruct
your workflow.

>> >> If you want to see them, you can always run `git status --ignored`.
>> >
>> > If you want it, you can always run `make .gitignore` *once*.
>>
>> Once for every clone of sbase.
>
> Yes, as opposed to once for every git status command issued.

Perhaps you can set up a shorter git alias for `status --ignored`.
This will also work for other repositories that contain a .gitignore.

>> >> > What's the rationale for having it duplicated both in the SCM and in
>> >> > the
>> >> > Makefile then?
>> >>
>> >> So that if a utility is added or removed, .gitignore can easily be kept
>> >> in
>> >> sync.
>> >
>> > So what's the point of having .gitignore tracked by the SCM?
>>
>> So that it gets applied by default.
>
> It seems you're deliberately not answering the question, or are
> suggesting bloating the make/SCM system with a justification for
> lazyness.

I answered the question. I want .gitignore checked in because then the
configuration gets applied by default. I want a rule to update it so
that it is easy to keep in sync with the Makefile.

> You asked if there was any objection to this, you got some, now do what
> you want.

I'm trying to understand your objection and workflow. My current
understanding is that you think it bloats the repository, and you
prefer to see the 250 lines of build artifacts when you run `git
status`. Is that an accurate summary?

In my opinion, since the file is only 700 bytes long, I think its
usefulness outweighs its bloat.

I'll wait a few more days in case someone else has an opinion.

> But pushing it both into the Makefile and the SCM is not justified at
> all, chose either one.

The Makefile rule will help to prevent it from getting out of date
with respect to the Makefile, so I think it is justified. It won't get
run unless you explicitly build it.
Received on Tue Jun 18 2019 - 02:53:43 CEST