Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | der_gopher's commentslogin

or .gitallow

Yes, but people miss often what is committed, especially if the change is big.

Eh? You explicitly have to add files to the stage before git will commit anything.

I like the analogy with ports, I also do the same - ufw deny all :)

yes, lazygit is huge, I mentioned it in the article too

yes, but user level is not a repo level

Yes, but this is exactly the sort of thing that should be a user-level configuration. A personal scratch directory has nothing to do with the repository itself and doesn’t belong in a repo’s .gitignore.

If it's only needed for one particular checkout, .git/info/exclude is the other obvious option.


You don't need to put the scratch directory in the committed gitignore file. gitignore files are recursive. So a common approach is to use a gitignore with * in the scratch directory.

In my 12 years of software engineering I've seen 10s of times people commit junk.

I do the same

Супер написано!


libopenapi won :)


Yeah, the name is very short to be unique. I don't want to rename yet, as I am ok if there are other projects with the same name as long as there is no legal trademark or something. But yeah, don't install it from the Homebrew, btw I added binaries to releases page so we can just wget it.


Two things: folks care about Brew because its update story is nice; otherwise one needs to constantly revisit your /releases (or plug /releases.atom into their RSS reader) in order to know. It also offers very light "I got what I expected" behavior via their use of sha256, which your current setup won't participate in since you're only publishing .md5 anyway

That leads to the second thing which is that you said you "added binaries" but your release artifacts are .tar.gz which means that one now needs to `curl -fSL | tar -xzf - -C /whatever` and deal with whatever interior directory scheme you are using (I didn't check)

I suspect I may be throwing good commentary after bad, but if you did want to participate in Brew distribution, but don't want to go through their stupid PR process, you can retain control over your update schedule by creating a "Brew Tap" and then the consumer would (e.g.) `brew tap plutov/brew && brew install plutov/brew/oq` which also gets away from the naming collision


I also love Homebrew and use it daily, at the same time I don't want to go through the review process, but tap sounds good, will try it out, maybe goreleaser supports that too?


Honestly whilst the docs make the review process sound complicated, I went through it a few months ago and it ended up being super simple. Just follow the instructions to create the new formulae PR (and look at other recent ones) and then you’re all done. Updates are handled by a bot they run automatically when you make a new GitHub release, so you don’t even need to interact with the homebrew repo after setup.

You do have a naming conflict though unfortunately so I’m not sure how you would deal with that.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: