Updated git ignore file
ClosedPublic

Authored by nmel on Apr 24 2018, 7:29 AM.

Details

Summary
  • Removed build dirs as we don't encourage building in place
  • Added compiled docs
  • Added comments
Test Plan

None

Diff Detail

Repository
R167 Krusader
Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.
Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.
nmel requested review of this revision.Apr 24 2018, 7:29 AM
nmel created this revision.

I was so used to building in nested build folder. KDevelop itself propose it as a default build path. But maybe it is a bad practice, I don't know. Is it? :) I'm accepting since the other change is needed for sure.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Apr 25 2018, 9:04 PM
asensi accepted this revision as: asensi.Apr 25 2018, 9:32 PM

Thanks for the work you put on it!

nmel added a comment.Apr 26 2018, 4:00 AM

I was so used to building in nested build folder. KDevelop itself propose it as a default build path.

I don't want to cause the inconvenience. I thought it's something ancient, sorry. My intention was to keep the exception file clean. I'll gladly add it back if you want. Please let me know, I'll hold on for a while.

But maybe it is a bad practice, I don't know. Is it? :)

In-source builds are highly discouraged by CMake. This case is not in-source (binaries are not placed beside source files) or out-of-source (binaries are still inside the source tree). Not a big deal, IMO.

In-source builds are highly discouraged by CMake. This case is not in-source (binaries are not placed beside source files) or out-of-source (binaries are still inside the source tree). Not a big deal, IMO.

Understood, thanks for clarification! Well I still tend to think we should keep the line there for convenience. So that is my personal view. But if others would like to get rid of it, I'm not against :).

nmel added a comment.Apr 27 2018, 5:57 AM

Well I still tend to think we should keep the line there for convenience. So that is my personal view. But if others would like to get rid of it, I'm not against :).

No problem, I'll keep the line.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.