You find global ignores in all sorts of projects. For example, Ant has
a set of global ignores too when you do the <copy> task and other
I understand your viewpoint, but I can't say it should be the default.
The default should be what do a clear majority of the users want. In
most cases, adding compiled object code is not what the user wants.
Nor, do they want to commit their backup files.
Maybe an import is a bit different from a simple "svn add" and whether
or not global ignoring should be turned on or off should be different.
But, the default should be handled the way a majority of users would
expect it to be.
Most imported projects are projects that I working on, editing, and
compiling before I finally think it's ready to be given to the entire
company via the Subversion repository. In that case, generated object
files, backups from my text editor, and if I am on a Mac, the
.DS_Store directories are probably not what I want to import.
Maybe for import, we need a new formula for "svn import": You must
specify a whether or not you want to do global ignores:
$ svn import ...
Error: you must specify the --global-ignore parameter and set it to
"true" or "false"
$ svn import --global-ignore=true ...
By the way, there is no really true "global ignores" since each user
really sets their own via the $HOME/.subversion/config file.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Justin Johnson
> I currently have the same issue as described in this thread.
> I'm trying to import the JDK and all .so files are being quietly excluded
> from the import every time. The above thread points to .so files being
> included in the default value for global-ignore even though the book doesn't
> include it in the list, as can be seen at
> My thought is that having default ignore values is a mistake to begin with.
> It seems dangerous to me to have a default ignore value that prevents
> Subversion from importing certain files and having that default value
> quietly documented (ignoring the error in the doc for now) in an obscure
> section of the documentation or a config file that they wouldn't necessarily
> read for a long time.
> Does anyone else agree? Am I missing some important use case that drove
> this decision in the first place?
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-24 17:39:49 CET