From: Kay Sievers Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 21:31:02 GMT Subject: Re: gitweb wishlist Message-ID: <20050524213102.GB19180@vrfy.org> In-Reply-To: On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:13:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 May 2005, Thomas Glanzmann wrote: > > > > btw: > > > > For the mutt tree there are a few 'empty commits' eg were the > > parent tree is the same as the current. This is because git ignores > > .cvsignore and they commited some .cvsignore files without any other > > deltas. I don't know if you want to handle this. Just a note. > > I don't like source repositories with dot-files, and I thought it was a > good idea to disallow them, but on the other hand I'd like it even less if > some CVS-weenie goes and says "I can't convert my project to git without > potentially losing information". > > So in the name of furthering humanity through allowing people to migrate > away from CVS, I'm considering making the git dot-file check be more > specific to "." ".." and ".git". After all, project-specific rules might > have their own porcelain-related ignore-files that cause dot-files to > never appear.. What about allowing to put some file inside of .git/ under revision-control too? Wouldn't it be nice to have something like an "ignore" file or other repository meta-data managed by git itself. Kay