Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I don't find it indecipherable. We're ignoring stuff that can be
expected to be present after a normal build and successful make
check or make installcheck. As soon as we ignore more than that,
I'm going to insist on ignoring *~ ... do you want to open
Seems like it's probably a good idea, but I wanted to double-check
that no one has a different thought.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
gitignore-regression-failures.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Seems like it's probably a good idea, but I wanted to double-check
that no one has a different thought.
-1. If the lack of an ignore causes a problem for you, it indicates
that you're trying to commit code that fails the regression tests.
Is it really
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Seems like it's probably a good idea, but I wanted to double-check
that no one has a different thought.
-1. If the lack of an ignore causes a problem for you, it indicates
that
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
-1. If the lack of an ignore causes a problem for you, it indicates
that you're trying to commit code that fails the regression tests.
Is it really a good idea to let that happen
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The reason I assumed we'd want to ignore these is because they're
automatically generated files - unlike *.rej files, which are never
going to end up in your tree as a result of make anything. It doesn't
actually matter that
