5

If you are going to maintain empty directories in your git repo then use the strategy of placing a file inside the directory called .gitkeep. Searching on this filename will lead you to a discussion of the same topic (hopefully, maybe not). Which includes a lengthy discussion on how the semantics of the file name is somehow more important than the answer of keeping the directory in the repo. My favorite part was someone claiming the file name .gitkeep was the standard way of maintaining a directory and others jumping on this person saying not it is NOT the standard way, and that in fact any filename would work. Misunderstanding that saying it was the standard probably only referred to placing a file and not choosing that exact name.

Basically it seemed to turn into an autists semantics fistfight in the comments.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions...

Someone is that discussion claimed .gitkeep would lead to confusion if it was a standard git filename. I then found this:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions...

Is it wrong to find so much humor in this?

Comments
  • 3
    Me: what's wrong with just... Creating the directory when it's needed?
  • 1
    @atheist I have a project (not written by me) that relies on a directory existing during autogen. What I don't get is how the directory existed when I got it out a git repo to start with. So we needed to force that directory to exist. Otherwise it breaks builds in a non-obvious way.

    It is a third party library and I don't really give a shit how their build got that way. We will update at some point and it will probably go away. So just force it to exist and move on.
  • 4
    @Demolishun ah, so the answer is "shitty devs", it all makes sense now
  • 2
    also pedantic fights over nothing strangely calm me

    they're actually funny unlike fights over serious things. then it's fucking stressful and disturbing

    God I love pedantics, too.
Add Comment