On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eu...@timbira.com> wrote: > Robert Haas escreveu: >> I would be willing to maintain .gitignore files, under the agreement >> that if I should fail or cease to do so, and no one else wants to take >> over, then they all get removed. Would that be acceptable? >> > -1. I tend to agree with Tom and Peter. Why don't you use vpath builds when > using your favorite SCM? That way, we don't have trouble with auto-generated > files while getting your patch.
Tom's stated position was that the only way this was going to happen is if it regularly annoyed someone with access to the core repository. I am, and I do. Peter's position was that the excludes-list on the wiki was out of date and useless, that he doesn't like .cvsignore files, and that he lets other people clean up after him. I'm not disputing any of that; at the same time, I am constantly ignored by the failure to have proper .gitignore files, so I'm motivated to put in the work to clean up after him and everyone else. I don't find vpath builds to be convenient, so that is why I do not use them regularly. I am not sure what you mean by "trouble with auto-generated files when getting my patch". The only downside I can see to allowing this to move forward is that it will create some small amount of additional commit traffic as a result of me updating the files. But I don't think it would be very much - only a small percentage of our commits add new auto-generated files. Having said all that, I don't care to argue about it. It's not worth it. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
