On 4/1/22 09:02, Erik Skultety wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 08:40:29AM +0200, Michal Prívozník wrote: >> On 3/25/22 23:51, natto1784 wrote: >>> Related: https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt/-/issues/9 >>> Signed-off-by: natto1784 <natto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .gitignore | 4 ++++ >>> tools/virsh-completer-host.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >>> tools/virsh-completer-host.h | 5 +++++ >>> tools/virsh-host.c | 3 +++ >>> 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore >>> index 4695391..62012f4 100644 >>> --- a/.gitignore >>> +++ b/.gitignore >>> @@ -23,4 +23,8 @@ tags >>> >>> # clangd related ignores >>> .clangd >>> +.cache/clangd >>> compile_commands.json >>> + >>> +# ccls cache >>> +.ccls-cache > > Neither of ^these are actually related in any way to the project itself or the > toolchain adopted by the project, on the contrary both relate to user's > working environment. Therefore these should not be placed in the project's > gitignore and instead be put in your own (global) one. > I didn't even know we had clangd bits in there which should have never been the > case IMO (I spotted this patch by an accident). > A bit of background: I was told the same thing in the virt-manager project and > ever since I'm using my own gitignore for everything that does not strictly > relate the toolchain used by the project. I don't disagree, but we already have records for vim/emacs/clang/python(?). I believe the same argument can be made about those files too. BTW: why do we have __pycache__/ in there? Isn't that a relic from the old times, when python bindings were living in the same repo? Michal
