On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié ene 26 19:20:52 -0300 2011:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> >> Ick. That's an awful lot of stuff to have global ignores for.
>>
>> > The "coverage" directory ignore seems a little icky, but the rest
>> > seems unlikely to pick up anything incidental.
>>
>> Tying /coverage to the root as in his V2 makes that better,
>
> Hmm, I don't think that works, because you can run "make coverage" in
> any subdir and it will create a "coverage" subdir there.
I like being told that I have a coverage directory outstanding when I
run "git status".
The hundreds of other files, not so much.
>> but I'm
>> still unexcited about the thesis that we should auto-ignore the results
>> of any random tool somebody wants to run in their source tree.
>
> Well, in this case it's not any random tool, because it's integrated
> into our makefiles.
I agree. Should this be added to commit-fest 2011-Next?
Also, should "make clean-coverage" be changed to remove all of those
files from the entire tree and not just root?
Cheers,
Jeff