> Makes me wonder if git status could maybe warn about empty trees as 'untracked'? Well, I "suppose" git-add could warn you that you are adding an empty tree (and I'd like if that happened, implicit vs explicit action i.e. ignoring). However, I assume the no-empty-tree case was a design decision; hence, it's been 2.2# versions without such warning. I doubt it would be considered to be added now. On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 10:08 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > If you wish to keep this directory "empty", but stored in Git, a common > > convention is to create an empty '.gitkeep' file in the directory. This > > file is not special in any way to Git, rather it serves as _a_ file to > > keep the directory non-empty. > > Hmph, I thought the common convention was to create a ".gitignore" > file in the directory with catch-all pattern, so that no matter what > cruft you had there "git add" will not add anything from it, if you > wish to keep this directory "empty". I believe Taylor is talking about explicitly keeping a directory empty, that may or may not, in the future, contain files (that will be tracked) [1]. You are infering that, regardless if there are files or will be added in the future, you don't want to check anything in. While [1] is a very niche corner case (and maybe it doesn't make sense to the most of us, true), there is a "debian-equivalent" behavior https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=812223 (I cannot find the definition of this behavior, but you can see an example usecase)
