On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: > On 1 January 2014 06:07, Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> I am not sure if this is the global .gitignore you are thinking of but this >> is the one I am in favor of: >> >> https://help.github.com/articles/ignoring-files#global-gitignore >> >> >> Maintaining .gitignore in 30+ repositories for a potentially infinite number >> of editors is very hard, and thankfully we have an easier way to do it. > > This is a strawman argument: noone (that I know of) has proposed > adding all editors to all repositories. There are in reality a few > very common editors and having their extensions present in per > repository .gitignores does absolutely *no harm*. There is no reason > not to have sane and sensible defaults in our repositories. > > If we are wasting time adding and removing patterns, then I think that > counts as a harm, so it is a sensible discussion to have to come to a > project standard, but the standard should be inclusive and useful, not > just useful for power users that have everything setup 'just so'. Many > contributors are using git for the first time when they contribute to > OpenStack, and getting git setup correctly is itself daunting [for new > users]. > > So I'm very much +1 on having tolerance for the top 5-10 editor > patterns in our .gitignores, -1 on *ever* having a bug open to change > this in any repository, and getting on with our actual task here of > writing fantastic code. > > If folk *really* don't want editor files in .gitignore (and given the > complete lack of harm I would -really- like a explanation for this > mindset) then we could solve the problem more permanently: we know > what files need to be added - *.rst, *.py, *.ini, [!.]* and a few > others. Everything else is junk and shouldn't be added. By > whitelisting patterns w e will support all editors except those whose > working file names match names we'd genuinely want to add. > > -Rob > > -- > Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> > Distinguished Technologist > HP Converged Cloud > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> If we are wasting time adding and removing patterns, then I think that > counts as a harm, so it is a sensible discussion to have to come to a > project standard, but the standard should be inclusive and useful, not > just useful for power users that have everything setup 'just so'. Many > contributors are using git for the first time when they contribute to > OpenStack, and getting git setup correctly is itself daunting [for new > users]. My point exactly is that this is creating churn and there is some back and forth (see links to LP items below). Like I said, I don't have an objection, I just want to be consistent and move on. This has come up in commits in past releases as well. As I said, I see little harm in having them present, however I see significant harm in racking up commits to take them in and out as well as the ugliness in having inconsistent policies in different projects. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1256043 https://bugs.launchpad.net/trove/+bug/1257279 https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-cinderclient/+bug/1255876 _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev