From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755225AbZBRAtr (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:49:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751454AbZBRAtj (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:49:39 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:54808 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752245AbZBRAti (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:49:38 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:49:19 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: David Miller , jeremy@goop.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, caglar@pardus.org.tr Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add *.rej to .gitignore Message-ID: <20090218004919.GG25856@elte.hu> References: <499B1729.5040802@goop.org> <20090217.143824.121552155.davem@davemloft.net> <20090218000506.GB12714@elte.hu> <20090218004039.GA30812@uranus.ravnborg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090218004039.GA30812@uranus.ravnborg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.3 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.3 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00,SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 0.2 SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION Attempt to obfuscate words in Subject: -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge > > > Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:59:37 -0800 > > > > > > > *.rej files really are unwanted. If there are any .rej files, they can be found by > > > > some other means (perhaps git itself could warn when committing with *.rej files present, > > > > or add some distinct notion of "ignored files" vs "never commit" files). > > > > > > > > (This effectively reverts 1f5d3a6b6532e25a5cdf1f311956b2b03d343a48) > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge > > > > > > I don't know about this. > > > > > > I really want to know if there are reject files there if I am > > > checking to see if my tree is clean. > > > > > > This has caught many patch application errors for myself > > > personally in the past, so I really don't want git to start > > > silently ignoring those things. > > > > > > People should delete reject file explicitly, as they are > > > evidence of a patch that would not apply cleanly. If you > > > abort trying to add the patch, fine, but cleaning up the > > > reject files is part of that operation. > > > > Well, it depends on the workflow. You are making the assumption > > that everyone is using your workflow, and you are judging them > > based on that false assumption. > > > > In my workflow i never miss .rej files because i use tools that > > _do not allow_ rejects to occur - only if i intentionally force > > them. So i cannot "miss" any .rej files - i generate them very > > consciously so all my attention is on them already. > > So in your advanced usage it does not matter what git does > with .rej files. > > And it hepls people using git in a more naive way. > > This is an easy judgement - lets do what benefit the most. I'd argue with calling it 'naive', i'd call it 'dangerous'. Anyway, i definitely dont want to prevent others from having a defense against mistakes (even if those mistakes are at least partly self-inflicted). My only beef is that i think i have a good workflow, still i have no efficient automated defense against .rej files getting into the tree. I have to use 'git commit -n' too frequently, and that overrides the pre-commit hook. I.e. i should start using the workflow i consider more dangerous - and i should start removing .rej files while they are clearly useful even after the commit. Isnt that backwards? Ingo