On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> There are a couple of things I think should happen ASAP once the git
> repository is up, but weren't mentioned in Magnus' plans:
>
> 1. The various .cvsignore files need to be replaced by .gitignore files.
> I am not sure though whether this is a trivial conversion --- does git
> have similar default rules about ignoring .o, etc?
No, it doesn't. There are some policy decisions to be made here, too,
about what we wish to actually ignore. Personally, my preference
would be to arrange to ignore all and only *build products*, but not
things like *.rej files that CVS "helpfully" fails to mention. Also,
I think we should consider having just one .gitignore file at the top
level rather than a file in every individual directory (you can
include relative pathnames). I think that might be significantly
easier to manage.
> 2. One thing I will miss from the removal of $PostgreSQL$ tags is that
> they guaranteed that every file contained its own full pathname within
> the source tree. I found myself using that an awful lot, mainly as a
> source for copying-and-pasting file paths. To substitute for the tags,
> I would like to propose a project standard that every file contain its
> pathname in the header comment, not just the bare filename which is the
> de facto standard at the moment. For example, instead of
This seems totally useless to me. However, I suppose you can do it if
it makes you happy...
> Whatever we do with the .cvsignore files will need to be back-patched
> into all active branches, but I am not so anal-retentive as to wish
> to back-patch the pathname comment changes.
Yes, we should DEFINITELY back-patch the .cvsignore stuff.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company