Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mdaYy-0000Xp-Aj for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:05:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mdaYQ-0000MZ-1T for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:04:30 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mdaYP-0000MJ-PX for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:04:29 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mdaYN-0007xY-Pl for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:04:28 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 19LG4MH12421096; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:04:22 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Matthias van de Meent cc: Andres Freund , PostgreSQL Hackers , Thomas Munro , Andrew Dunstan Subject: Re: Adding CI to our tree In-reply-to: References: <20211001222752.wrz7erzh4cajvgp6@alap3.anarazel.de> <20211002001053.cw2p2shqmyzygsms@alap3.anarazel.de> <3690084.1633187120@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Matthias van de Meent message dated "Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:55:32 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2421094.1634832262.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:04:22 -0400 Message-ID: <2421095.1634832262@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Matthias van de Meent 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