Re: Only track built files for final output?

From: Pratyush Yadav <me@yadavpratyush.com>
Date: Aug 20, 2019, 17:46 UTC
Message-ID: <20190820174640.n3elekpi6l4vwamp@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <477295c5-f817-e32b-04fd-a41ddfbbac0a@gmail.com>

On 20/08/19 08:21AM, Leam Hall wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Hey all, a newbie could use some help.
> 
> We have some code that generates data files, and as a part of our build
> process those files are rebuilt to ensure things work. This causes an issue
> with branches and merging, as the data files change slightly and dealing
> with half a dozen merge conflicts, for files that are in an interim state,
> is frustrating. The catch is that when the code goes to the production
> state, those files must be in place and current.
> 
> We use a release branch, and then fork off that for each issue. Testing, and
> file creation, is a part of the pre-merge process. This is what causes the
> merge conflicts.
> 
> Right now my thought is to put the "final" versions of the files in some
> other directory, and put the interim file storage directory in .gitignore.
> Is there a better way to do this?
>

My philosophy with Git is to only track files that I need to generate the final product. I never track the generated files, because I can always get to them via the tracked "source" files.

So for example, I was working on a simple parser in Flex and Bison. Flex and Bison take source files in their syntax, and generate a C file each that is then compiled and linked to get to the final binary. So instead of tracking the generated C files, I only tracked the source Flex and Bison files. My build system can always get me the generated files.

So in your case, what's wrong with just tracking the source files needed to generate the other files, and then when you want a release binary, just clone the repo, run your build system, and get the generated files? What benefit do you get by tracking the generated files?

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav