bada...@gmail.com (Alex Hunsaker) writes:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 02:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> You can always create your own branch with just the .gitignore files
>> and merge that into whatever you're working on :)
>
> The only thing annoying about that is if you generate diffs ala git
> di
I wrote:
> git status | grep '^#[^ ]' | sed -e 's/#\t//' \
> -e '/^[^\/][^\/]*$/ s/^/\//' >> .gitignore
I guess that part can be simplified to:
git status | grep '^#[^ ]' | sed -e 's/#\t/\//' >> .gitignore
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To mak
Robert Haas wrote:
> What I'm interested in is being able to run 'git status' on a tree
> in which I've run a build without getting a lot of extra output,
> and that will require ignoring all the build products.
If you prefer to keep it all in one directory tree, something like
the following w
* Magnus Hagander [100109 13:05]:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 18:33, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> > * Magnus Hagander [100109 12:03]:
> >
> >> If that's the only remaining obstacle, I'm willing to work up some
> >> test scripts around that. But I'm not going to do that if it's going
> >> to fall over on
Hi,
Another occasion to show ignorance, I couldn't resist!
Tom Lane writes:
> What you're
> talking about would require a great deal more maintenance effort, and
> I don't see the point compared to using a VPATH build.
I've discovered VPATH builds pretty recently, in the context of
packaging e
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Probably someone to actually track the open items that are mentioned
every time this discussion happens.
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Switching_PostgreSQL_from_CVS_to_Git now
has what I believe the state of the world to be in this area.
--
Greg Smith2ndQuadr
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> ... What I'm interested in is being
>> able to run 'git status' on a tree in which I've run a build without
>> getting a lot of extra output, and that will require ignoring all the
>> build products.
>
> I'm fairly hesitant
Robert Haas writes:
> ... What I'm interested in is being
> able to run 'git status' on a tree in which I've run a build without
> getting a lot of extra output, and that will require ignoring all the
> build products.
I'm fairly hesitant to set up ignore files that list *all* the build
products
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2010-01-09 at 17:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Oh. Never mind. That doesn't seem useful enough to be worth spending
>> time on. What I want is to ignore all of the build products, so that
>> when I do 'git status' in my working
On lör, 2010-01-09 at 17:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Oh. Never mind. That doesn't seem useful enough to be worth spending
> time on. What I want is to ignore all of the build products, so that
> when I do 'git status' in my working tree, I only see the the files
> I've actually added/changed.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
What I want is to ignore all of the build products
>
>>> Use a vpath build, and you'll keep those artifacts out of your source tree.
>
>> I s
On lör, 2010-01-09 at 17:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Oh. Never mind. That doesn't seem useful enough to be worth spending
> >> time on. What I want is to ignore all of the build products, so that
> >> when I do 'git status' in my working tree, I only see the the files
> >> I've actually ad
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> What I want is to ignore all of the build products
>> Use a vpath build, and you'll keep those artifacts out of your source tree.
> I suppose that's one answer, but of what use is it to ignore
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
On fre, 2010-01-08 at 12:04 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Do .gitignore files have the same format as .cvsignore?
The format
Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
On fre, 2010-01-08 at 12:04 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Do .gitignore files have the same format as .cvsignore?
The format is the same, but while cvsignore files currently
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On fre, 2010-01-08 at 12:04 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Do .gitignore files have the same format as .cvsignore?
>
>> The format is the same, but while cvsignore files currently list a few
>> dozen files, the propo
On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 12:47:00PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 05:54, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Tom Lane escribió:
> >> David Fetter writes:
> >> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:35:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> >> Probably eventually we'll be on git and this will be
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 18:33, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
>> It's already been done. It was not a lot of work (just processor time).
>> It's even already been posted to -hackers, including what the
>> differences were (i.e. which $Tags$ differed, and where, and where the
>> CV
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 18:33, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> * Magnus Hagander [100109 12:03]:
>
>> If that's the only remaining obstacle, I'm willing to work up some
>> test scripts around that. But I'm not going to do that if it's going
>> to fall over on something else as well, because it'll be a nont
* Magnus Hagander [100109 12:03]:
> If that's the only remaining obstacle, I'm willing to work up some
> test scripts around that. But I'm not going to do that if it's going
> to fall over on something else as well, because it'll be a nontrivial
> amount of work to test ir properly :-)
It's alre
On lör, 2010-01-09 at 12:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On fre, 2010-01-08 at 12:04 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Do .gitignore files have the same format as .cvsignore?
>
> > The format is the same, but while cvsignore files currently list a few
> > dozen files, the
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 17:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> If/when we are moving the main repository, we should use the first
>> one. Yes, this will invalidate all current git clones out there, but
>> that's a one-time cost. Will there be issues? Possibly. But we're
>> *never* goi
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On fre, 2010-01-08 at 12:04 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Do .gitignore files have the same format as .cvsignore?
> The format is the same, but while cvsignore files currently list a few
> dozen files, the proposed gitignore would list all files that are ever
> build
Magnus Hagander writes:
> If/when we are moving the main repository, we should use the first
> one. Yes, this will invalidate all current git clones out there, but
> that's a one-time cost. Will there be issues? Possibly. But we're
> *never* going to get something that's *guaranteed* 100% safe, no
On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 12:47:00PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> But we're *never* going to get something that's *guaranteed* 100%
> safe,
You can end the sentence right there. *Everything* has a strictly
positive probability of catastrophic failure.
> not when going from something like CVS...
On fre, 2010-01-08 at 20:03 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:35:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Probably eventually we'll be on git and this will be moot, but that
> > doesn't seem to be ready to happen.
>
> What still needs to happen on this? Clearly this would be a post-8
On fre, 2010-01-08 at 12:04 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Do .gitignore files have the same format as .cvsignore? If that's the
> case then it's simply a matter of a "find /source -name .cvsignore
> -exec
> cp {} .gitignore \;" or similar, isn't it? Doesn't sound like
> something
> anybody shoul
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 05:54, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> David Fetter writes:
>> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:35:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> Probably eventually we'll be on git and this will be moot, but that
>> >> doesn't seem to be ready to happen.
>>
>> > What still ne
Tom Lane escribió:
> David Fetter writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:35:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Probably eventually we'll be on git and this will be moot, but that
> >> doesn't seem to be ready to happen.
>
> > What still needs to happen on this? Clearly this would be a post-8.5
> >
David Fetter writes:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:35:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Probably eventually we'll be on git and this will be moot, but that
>> doesn't seem to be ready to happen.
> What still needs to happen on this? Clearly this would be a post-8.5
> (or whatever the new release num
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:35:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Probably eventually we'll be on git and this will be moot, but that
> doesn't seem to be ready to happen.
What still needs to happen on this? Clearly this would be a post-8.5
(or whatever the new release number is) thing, but apart from
Robert Haas writes:
> Tom's stated position was that the only way this was going to happen
> is if it regularly annoyed someone with access to the core repository.
> I am, and I do.
Yeah. I don't see the harm in it if Robert (or some other git user)
will contract to maintain them. I know that
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
wrote:
> Robert Haas escreveu:
>> I would be willing to maintain .gitignore files, under the agreement
>> that if I should fail or cease to do so, and no one else wants to take
>> over, then they all get removed. Would that be acceptable?
Robert Haas escreveu:
> I would be willing to maintain .gitignore files, under the agreement
> that if I should fail or cease to do so, and no one else wants to take
> over, then they all get removed. Would that be acceptable?
>
-1. I tend to agree with Tom and Peter. Why don't you use vpath bui
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On tor, 2010-01-07 at 22:16 +, Tim Bunce wrote:
>>> Is there any reason not to add .gitignore files into the repository?
>
>> I already find the .cvsignore files to be useless and an annoyance to
>> keep up to date
On Friday 08 January 2010 17:38:15 Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 02:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > You can always create your own branch with just the .gitignore files
> > and merge that into whatever you're working on :)
>
> The only thing annoying about that is if you generate d
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 02:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> You can always create your own branch with just the .gitignore files
> and merge that into whatever you're working on :)
The only thing annoying about that is if you generate diffs ala git
diff origin/master.. you get your .gitignore in it.
Magnus Hagander escribió:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 00:44, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 15:16, Tim Bunce wrote:
> >> Is there any reason not to add .gitignore files into the repository?
> >> They'll make no difference to those who don't use git, but be very
> >> helpful to, and
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 00:44, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 15:16, Tim Bunce wrote:
>> Is there any reason not to add .gitignore files into the repository?
>> They'll make no difference to those who don't use git, but be very
>> helpful to, and maintained by, those who do.
>
> Sin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 04:44:49PM -0700, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 15:16, Tim Bunce wrote:
> > Is there any reason not to add .gitignore files into the repository?
> > They'll make no difference to those who don't use git, but be
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 15:16, Tim Bunce wrote:
> Is there any reason not to add .gitignore files into the repository?
> They'll make no difference to those who don't use git, but be very
> helpful to, and maintained by, those who do.
Since it seems we don't want them in CVS, maybe just add it to
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 05:45:08PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On tor, 2010-01-07 at 22:16 +, Tim Bunce wrote:
> >> Is there any reason not to add .gitignore files into the repository?
>
> > I already find the .cvsignore files to be useless and an annoyance to
> > ke
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On tor, 2010-01-07 at 22:16 +, Tim Bunce wrote:
>> Is there any reason not to add .gitignore files into the repository?
> I already find the .cvsignore files to be useless and an annoyance to
> keep up to date (well, I basically ignore them and someone else cleans
>
On Thursday 07 January 2010 23:32:27 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2010-01-07 at 22:16 +, Tim Bunce wrote:
> > I've a .git/info/exclude file I pulled from a link on the dev wiki.
> >
> > Some of the changes I'm making create new files that ought to be added
> > to the excluded files. I can
On tor, 2010-01-07 at 22:16 +, Tim Bunce wrote:
> I've a .git/info/exclude file I pulled from a link on the dev wiki.
>
> Some of the changes I'm making create new files that ought to be added
> to the excluded files. I can easily add them to my .git/info/exclude
> file but it's much more work
I've a .git/info/exclude file I pulled from a link on the dev wiki.
Some of the changes I'm making create new files that ought to be added
to the excluded files. I can easily add them to my .git/info/exclude
file but it's much more work for me and others to spread those changes.
Is there any reas
46 matches
Mail list logo
