On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 03:56:39PM +0200, Holger Hellmuth wrote: > > You've got my vote. This is the only option that combines safety with > minimal configuration hassle. > > I didn't know about this subtle difference between .gitignore and > .git/info/exclude. And while this makes sense I expect a sizable > percentage of users will never even know that .git/info/exclude exists. I don't know if this subtle difference was even intentional. But it makes sense, and we simply need to make it explicit by documenting it and by making it optional. And in many cases, that behavior makes sense. Imagine a generated file is accidentally added to git, later removed from version control and added to .gitignore instead. A common scenario, I am sure. Now if you start merging, rebasing or bisecting with such a history, you _will_ run into this problem all the time. Renaming is certainly a possibility, but it does not really solve the problem. We will end up with a bunch of renamed, possibly precious files in our work tree, which means we have to clean up manually anyways. So I think it is better to make the decision whether or not a file is precious at the time it is added to .gitignore. In other words, never add precious files to .gitignore, but add them to .git/info/exclude instead. > And in practice I guess a lot of files will get added to > .gitignore even though they only are relevant to one user (out of > carelessness or ignorance). I know I have added patterns without > making a conscious decision about their relevance to others. Then you have been using it wrong, just like I have. Ignorant/careless users may still make that mistake, but if git does not overwrite such files by default, at least they made a conscious decision at some point to take that risk. That is if we can make it the default. Clemens
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature