I'm confused. Having a file gitignored doesn't stop you from committing it; AFAIK you can just
touch build/.gitkeep
git add build/.gitkeep
git commit build/.gitkeep
I'm confused. Having a file gitignored doesn't stop you from committing it; AFAIK you can just
touch build/.gitkeep
git add build/.gitkeep
git commit build/.gitkeep
The idea is that you don't want to check-in any builds.
Sure, so gitignore build/ or whatever. But you don't need to unignore .gitkeep
The idea is that instead of adding a nonsense file, you use the native .gitignore functionality.
".gitkeep" is just a human thing; it would work the same if you called it ".blahblah".
So their pitch is that if you want to explicitly keep the existence of the directory as a committed part of the repo, you're better off using the actual .gitignore functionality to check in the .gitignore file but ignore anything else in the directory.
I don't find it amazingly compelling; .gitkeep isn't breaking anything.
This still confuses me. Do you mean to say "use the .gitignore functionality, and check in the .gitkeep file"?
No. Use a .gitignore instead of .gitkeep. Instead of checking in build/.gitkeep, check in build/.gitignore.
I don't know that I like this approach. It certainly works, but it's not specifically what (people expect) a .gitignore file to be used for. That confusion isn't good: https://thecodelesscode.com/case/222 and https://thecodelesscode.com/case/223
.gitignore is the officially recommended way to do this: https://archive.kernel.org/oldwiki/git.wiki.kernel.org/index...
Granted, naming is hard. Routinely using a file named .deleteme or .rememberwalkthedog because it's recommended instead of a more readable solution, is not a compelling reason to switch.