Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

On May 10, 2017, at 6:40 PM, David Mason wrote: > > On 10 May 2017 at 17:05, Artur Shepilko wrote: > Not sure about the objectives the students are learning in this > course, but if it in any way relates to programming, recognizing as > to what to keep

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

On 5/10/2017 1:12 PM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote: So, ignore ‘makefile’? *From:* Ross Berteig # ignore files without at least one dot somewhere in their name !*.* Yup. It would do that. And README, LICENSE, CHANGELOG. Not without its problems. But

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

On 10 May 2017 at 17:05, Artur Shepilko wrote: > Not sure about the objectives the students are learning in this > course, but if it in any way relates to programming, recognizing as > to what to keep under version control is a reasonable objective on its > own. > While I

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

Not sure about the objectives the students are learning in this course, but if it in any way relates to programming, recognizing as to what to keep under version control is a reasonable objective on its own. There could be valid reasons to keeping executables and other build artifacts versioned,

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

So, ignore ‘makefile’? From: Ross Berteig # ignore files without at least one dot somewhere in their name !*.* ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

On 5/10/2017 7:08 AM, David Mason wrote: I generate the initial fossil for them. The problem is that I don't control, e.g. executable names, so if they have foo.c and say `make foo` they will have foo.o which I can match, but also foo which I can't (because they might call it foox.c - and

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

I generate the initial fossil for them. The problem is that I don't control, e.g. executable names, so if they have foo.c and say `make foo` they will have foo.o which I can match, but also foo which I can't (because they might call it foox.c - and hence foox - instead). Because I generate the

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

Yes, that would work. A flag to reject binary files could work too, for all the .o and .beam files that are small but annoying. I know that wouldn't work perfectly as the binary detection is heuristic, but would be very convenient. Actually a flag that caused `fossil add` and `fossil addremove`

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

Thus said David Mason on Wed, 10 May 2017 01:07:22 -0400: > If the students were very disciplined, they would assiduously edit > ignore-glob to prevent this. But if there is one thing that students > (en-mass) are not, it's disciplined! Do students generate their own Fossil, or is the

Re: [fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

On 5/10/17, David Mason wrote: > I've described before how I use fossil to manage student assignment > submissions in courses I teach. > > A perennial problem is that the students commit binary executables, .o > files, and the like. Theses change every build so I have dozens of

[fossil-users] Limiting cruft in my repos

I've described before how I use fossil to manage student assignment submissions in courses I teach. A perennial problem is that the students commit binary executables, .o files, and the like. Theses change every build so I have dozens of versions of potentially large files in the student repos.