llvm dev - Nov 2012 - [LLVMdev] [PATCH] .gitignore: add rules for a clean worktree

Hi Dmitri,

Dmitri Gribenko wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
> <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Add several .gitignore rules to various directories to ensure a clean
>> worktree after a default build.
>
> Hi,
>
> These gitignore lists require maintenance.  Is is possible to express
> the same set of filenames as patterns like '*.inc' in the root
> gitigrore file, so that adding/removing a new generated file does not
> require updating gitignore?
That's a valid concern, but there are plenty of *.inc files that
aren't meant to be ignored; for example lib/Support/Unix/Host.inc.  I
can't think of any other patterns that would further simplify my
patch.  Also, it's idiomatic to use a per-directory .gitignore rather
than one toplevel .gitignore.

Ram

On Nov 13, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Dmitri,
> 
> Dmitri Gribenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
>> <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Add several .gitignore rules to various directories to ensure a
clean
>>> worktree after a default build.
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> These gitignore lists require maintenance.  Is is possible to express
>> the same set of filenames as patterns like '*.inc' in the root
>> gitigrore file, so that adding/removing a new generated file does not
>> require updating gitignore?
> 
> That's a valid concern, but there are plenty of *.inc files that
> aren't meant to be ignored; for example lib/Support/Unix/Host.inc.  I
> can't think of any other patterns that would further simplify my
> patch.  Also, it's idiomatic to use a per-directory .gitignore rather
> than one toplevel .gitignore.
I was under the impression that in-source-tree builds were an unsupported
configuration. It's certainly strongly discouraged. I'm not fond of the
idea of making it easier, especially when there's a maintenance cost to
doing so.

-Jim
> 
> Ram
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

> I was under the impression that in-source-tree builds were an unsupported
> configuration. It's certainly strongly discouraged. I'm not fond of
the
> idea of making it easier, especially when there's a maintenance cost to
> doing so.
>
Strongly discouraged, and yes, this.

-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121113/d11ae4c9/attachment.html>