Hi Junio, On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> Good to catch these cruft. > >> > >> Does the equivalent of "make distclean" need to be updated to clean > >> them as well, or is it sufficient to ignore the build procedure and > >> just rely on "git clean -f -x"? > > > > Since CMake in conjunction with Visual Studio completely side-steps > > `make`, I think it would make most sense to ignore `make distclean` in > > this context and go for `git clean -dfx` instead. > > I think you misunderstood the question, overlooking the "equivalent" > part. > > I expected that when CMake & VS discards build artifacts, it would > not make literal use of "make distclean". After all, it does not > use "make all" to build, either. > > That led me to suspect that CMake & VS may have a build target that > is used to discard build artifacts, the moral equivalent to "make > distclean". That is where my question "if we are making .gitignore > aware of more crufts, don't we need to tell the machinery, which is > equivalent to 'make disclean', came from. > > What I am hearing here is that people with CMake & VS use "git clean > -dfx" when they want to go back to the pristine state, unlike those > who use "make distclean", and there is nothing to adjust for newly > discovered crufts we are leaving on the filesystem. Yes, that is my understanding. > If that is the case, it is 100% fine. It was that I just didn't > expect not having a "remove cruft" rule in the build procedure. Thanks, Dscho
