Skip to content

Rework .gitignore #147

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 4, 2025
Merged

Rework .gitignore #147

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 4, 2025

Conversation

michaelpq
Copy link
Contributor

This commit reworks .gitignore to be more portable depending on the options used in the PostgreSQL build this module links to, in various aspects:

  • Ignore code generated for LLVM bitcode.
  • Dependencies.
  • Libraries.
  • Coverage files.
  • WIN32 and MacOS files.
  • Ignore isolation test subdirectory.
  • Do not ignore regression.diffs and regression.out. This is more useful to detect if something is broken in the tree, in line with upstream core practices.

The contents of this file are updated to something closer to what upstream uses.

@michaelpq
Rework .gitignore
a8f9315 
This commit reworks .gitignore to be more portable depending on the
options used in the PostgreSQL build this module links to, in various
aspects:
- Ignore code generated for LLVM bitcode.
- Dependencies.
- Libraries.
- Coverage files.
- WIN32 and MacOS files.
- Ignore isolation test subdirectory.
- Do *not* ignore regression.diffs and regression.out.  This is more
useful to detect if something is broken in the tree, in line with
upstream core practices.

The contents of this file are updated to something closer to what
upstream uses.
@yugo-n yugo-n self-requested a review July 18, 2025 01:01
@yugo-n
Copy link
Collaborator

yugo-n commented Jul 18, 2025

Thank you for the PR!

We discussed it in #103 and I determined to start the simplest .gitsignore, similar to that of pg_bigm.
However, it seems reasonable to include more entries since isolation tests was added, or for Windows, for example.

I wonder if some entries are really necessary, for example, .exe files won't be generated in this module.
Still, do you think it's better to include them anyway for consistency with upstream conventions?

@michaelpq
Copy link
Contributor Author

Still, do you think it's better to include them anyway for consistency with upstream conventions?

It does not hurt to keep them, but if you want to remove some parts I'm OK with it as well. You are the maintainer. The parts that bothered me directly are the regression.*, the macos bits and .deps.

@yugo-n
Copy link
Collaborator

yugo-n commented Sep 4, 2025

It does not hurt to keep them, but if you want to remove some parts I'm OK with it as well. You are the maintainer. The parts that bothered me directly are the regression.*, the macos bits and .deps.

Okay, I’m fine with that.

@yugo-n yugo-n merged commit e1c2627 into sraoss:main Sep 4, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@yugo-n yugo-n yugo-n approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@michaelpq @yugo-n