GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 570275
Does not ignore some generated files
Last modified: 2010-05-03 02:37:46 UTC
Please describe the problem: Subversion is not configured to ignore some of the files generated during a build. Steps to reproduce: 1. svn checkout http://svn.gnome.org/svn/metacity/trunk/ metacity 2. cd metacity 3. ./autogen.sh 4. make 5. svn status Actual results: "svn status" displays the following: ? gnome-doc-utils.make ? src/metacity-wm.desktop ? src/metacity.schemas.in ? src/schema_bindings ? doc/creating_themes/Makefile.in ? doc/creating_themes/Makefile Expected results: "svn status" to display nothing. Does this happen every time? Yes. Other information:
Created attachment 127790 [details] [review] Patch
Comment on attachment 127790 [details] [review] Patch Three things: 1) I'm really sorry this bug dropped off the radar. Life has been pretty busy, but that's no excuse. 2) This doesn't appear to be a patch. Or if it's some kind of patch I haven't run into, I don't know how to apply it. 3) We're not using svn any more. Do you know whether the issue remains with git?
Hi Thomas, (In reply to comment #2) > (From update of attachment 127790 [details] [review]) > Three things: > > 1) I'm really sorry this bug dropped off the radar. Life has been pretty busy, > but that's no excuse. > > 2) This doesn't appear to be a patch. Or if it's some kind of patch I haven't > run into, I don't know how to apply it. Yes, it's definitely not standard. Unfortunately, that's what "svn diff" produced when I invoked it to determine what properties I'd changed. > 3) We're not using svn any more. Do you know whether the issue remains with > git? It does. I'll attach the output of "git status" after running "git clone git://git.gnome.org/metacity && cd metacity && ./autogen.sh && make" shortly.
Created attachment 160176 [details] "git status" output
Looks good. Committed.
(Oh, and thanks!)
Created attachment 160177 [details] [review] Ignore generated files
Review of attachment 160177 [details] [review]: Is this different from the patch that just went into master from your previous attachment?
(In reply to comment #8) > Review of attachment 160177 [details] [review]: > > Is this different from the patch that just went into master from your previous > attachment? Yes, but it's mostly just future-proofing (e.g., ignoring po/*.gmo or *.o, so that new .gmo and .o files are automatically ignored).