[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Add .gitignore files

[Andy Fleming]

> > There is a strongly established workflow convention use by other
> > git-using projects.  The workflow for committing is this:
> > $ git-status   # to show what has changed/added/removed
> > $ git-update-index   # as needed to update the index
> > $ git-commit    # make it real;
> > It should be noted that 'make clean' is not a required step for the
> > commit workflow.
> >
> I can do this fine even with uncleanded files. cg-commit will not anny
> files that have not been added with cg-add.
>
> Is this different with above sequence of git commands?


You don't *have* to use git-status first.  If, for instance, you know
all the names of the files which need to be committed.  But this is
typically done to see what files have changed, and to see what files
aren't yet tracked by git.  However, when there are a few hundred
object files also in that list, git-status is useless for seeing the
new files.

It's also a bit inconvenient for checking the status, because people
who are used to Linux are used to just typing git-status, and seeing
the handful of lines of output.  In U-Boot, you only get a handful of
lines if you've done make clean.

In other words, the forgetful developer like me has this process in U-Boot:

> git-status
> # swear
> git-status | less
> # wonder if I added any new files
> git-status | less
> # swear.  Give up on finding new files
> make clean
> git-status
> # Ah, I forgot about that one
> git-add # Add/update all files, including the new ones
> git-commit #commit the changes

I work in an office environment--all that swearing endangers my job!  ;)

>
> I always assumed that you have to use "git-add"  to  explicitely  add
> new files to the idex. Is this assumption wrong?

No, that's right.

>
> If not, what do a few extra files hurt when running a commit?

It's not a few extra files.  It's several hundred.  And it makes it
harder to find the handful of files which are actually relevant.


> I lost you here. Why do you need the output of git-status  to  commit
> changes?


Just to identify them.  It feeds the information to the developer, so
we can tell git which files need to be committed.


Andy