19/12/2016 18:14, Bruce Richardson: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 04:50:57PM +0000, Mcnamara, John wrote: > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 03:05:20PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 2016-12-13 12:02, Ferruh Yigit: > > > > > On 12/13/2016 11:48 AM, Baruch Siach wrote: > > > > > > RTE_OUTPUT defaults to build/. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <bar...@tkos.co.il> > > > > > > > > > > There is a similar patch: > > > > > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/11637/ > > > > > > > > > > If you want you can review/comment that one too. > > > > > > > > Yes, sorry I've never commented above patch. > > > > > > > > I do not like filling .gitignore because I prefer seeing what is built > > > > or copied or whatever with "git status". > > > > What is really the benefit of .gitignore? > > > > > > I take the opposite view. I only like to see files that I actually care > > > about in the git status. Any build artifacts should be ignored by git as > > > they are not files that it ever should track. That way doing a build does > > > not change the status of the repo as git sees it. > > > > As a workaround I have the following in my .gitconfig: > > > > [core] > > excludesfile = ~/.gitignore > > > > Then I put the ignore rules in ~/.gitignore. > > > > John > > > Yes, I have something similar done, so this is not a problem for me > personally. I just find it strange that we don't make more use of > gitignore in DPDK. The file's name itself seems to imply that it should > be used to list out files that git should not track, and build output is > definitely one of those.
I don't understand why we should hide the default build directory and not the other ones with different names. It would be perceived as inconsistent and confusing.
