Re: Adding CI to our tree

Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't disagree on that part, but I fail to see what makes the
> situations of an unused CI config file in the tree and an unused
> `/.idea/` or `/.vs/` specifier in the .gitignore [0][1] distinct
> enough for it to be resolved differently. Both are quality-of-life
> additions for those that use that tool, while non-users of that tool
> can ignore those configuration entries.

Um ... I don't see a connection at all. One is talking about files
we put into the git tree, and one is talking about files that are
*not* in the tree.

We do have a policy that files that are created by a supported build
process should be .gitignore'd, so that might lead to more .gitignore
entries as this idea moves ahead. I'm not on board though with the
idea of .gitignore'ing anything that anybody anywhere thinks is junk.
That's more likely to lead to conflicts and mistakes than anything
useful. We expect developers to have personal excludesfile lists
that block off editor backup files and other cruft from the tools
that they personally use but are not required by the build.

regards, tom lane