On 31/08/18 01:54, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:49:39AM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>
>> On 30/08/18 21:14, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> I suppose so. I don't think I've _ever_ used distclean, and I only
>>>> rarely use "clean" (a testament to our Makefile's efforts to accurately
>>>> track dependencies). I'd usually use "git clean" when I want something
>>>> pristine (because I don't want to trust the Makefile at all).
>>>
>>> I do not trust "git clean" all that much, and pre-cleaning with
>>> "make distclean" and then running "git clean -x" has become my bad
>>> habit. I jump around quite a bit during the day, which would end up
>>> littering the working tree with *.o files that are only known to one
>>> but not both of {maint,pu}/Makefile's distclean rules. I even do
>>> "for i in pu maint master next; do git checkout $i; make distclean; done"
>>> sometimes before running "git clean -x" ;-)
>>>
>>
>> 'git clean -x' always removes _way_ more than I want it
>> to - in particular, I lost my config.mak more than once.
>
> Heh. I have done that, too, but fortunately mine is a symlink to a copy
> that is held in a git repository. ;)
:-D
Now, why didn't I think of that! ;-)
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
