[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090218004919.GG25856@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:49:19 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeremy@...p.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gitster@...ox.com, caglar@...dus.org.tr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add *.rej to .gitignore
* Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
> > > From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
> > > Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:59:37 -0800
> > >
> > > > *.rej files really are unwanted. If there are any .rej files, they can be found by
> > > > some other means (perhaps git itself could warn when committing with *.rej files present,
> > > > or add some distinct notion of "ignored files" vs "never commit" files).
> > > >
> > > > (This effectively reverts 1f5d3a6b6532e25a5cdf1f311956b2b03d343a48)
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
> > >
> > > I don't know about this.
> > >
> > > I really want to know if there are reject files there if I am
> > > checking to see if my tree is clean.
> > >
> > > This has caught many patch application errors for myself
> > > personally in the past, so I really don't want git to start
> > > silently ignoring those things.
> > >
> > > People should delete reject file explicitly, as they are
> > > evidence of a patch that would not apply cleanly. If you
> > > abort trying to add the patch, fine, but cleaning up the
> > > reject files is part of that operation.
> >
> > Well, it depends on the workflow. You are making the assumption
> > that everyone is using your workflow, and you are judging them
> > based on that false assumption.
> >
> > In my workflow i never miss .rej files because i use tools that
> > _do not allow_ rejects to occur - only if i intentionally force
> > them. So i cannot "miss" any .rej files - i generate them very
> > consciously so all my attention is on them already.
>
> So in your advanced usage it does not matter what git does
> with .rej files.
>
> And it hepls people using git in a more naive way.
>
> This is an easy judgement - lets do what benefit the most.
I'd argue with calling it 'naive', i'd call it 'dangerous'.
Anyway, i definitely dont want to prevent others from having a
defense against mistakes (even if those mistakes are at least
partly self-inflicted).
My only beef is that i think i have a good workflow, still i
have no efficient automated defense against .rej files getting
into the tree. I have to use 'git commit -n' too frequently, and
that overrides the pre-commit hook.
I.e. i should start using the workflow i consider more dangerous
- and i should start removing .rej files while they are clearly
useful even after the commit.
Isnt that backwards?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists