Re: What .gitignore files do in the tarball?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Victor Wagner <vitus(at)wagner(dot)pp(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: What .gitignore files do in the tarball?
Date: 2015-11-25 15:29:02
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY_kXk9ML-2t9k5Vjr-0dvR-rYqXucwQ7RsSJQt9PRaew@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Victor Wagner <vitus(at)wagner(dot)pp(dot)ru> wrote:
>> I've noticed that source distribution archive of the postgresql contain
>> more than hundred of .gitignore files and one .gitattributes.
>>
>> Is it just a bug nobody bothered to fix, or these files can make
>> any sense outside git repository?
>
> They are harmless and do not consume that much space in a tarball, contrary
> to .git/ which has the whole history of the repository. And this behavior
> matches for example git-archive. Keeping them also has the advantage to
> allow people to deploy a tarball easily in an orphan branch of a fresh git
> repository. In a couple of companies where people can just work from
> tarballs (this exists and I know some), that's actually useful to keep them.

+1. I see 113 files totaling 8266 bytes. That's not much, and like
you say, they might be useful to somebody.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-11-25 16:12:25 Re: New email address
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2015-11-25 14:08:00 Re: pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups