There are labels with obvious names that people choose from, such as "macOS", or "eclipse", or "intellij". The site is called git ignore for a reason. But unique project-specific requirements and exceptions should not be imposed on everyone as the default. We all have our specific exceptions and requirements in our own projects. Since you choose to be selective in what IDE metadata you specifically want in version control (which is of course perfectly within your right, don't take me wrong), your workflow is (at least in that one regard) a more complicated and unusual one than that of most other developers in general. It's Perhaps my initial post indeed came off as a bit condescending, and I meant no offense.īut the fact remains that your requested change inconvenienced a lot of other people. Thank you in advance for considering my request and my apologies for coming off a bit cranky in this response. gitignore files, which would defeat much of the purpose of gitignore.io? That way, as soon as someone starts typing "intellij" in the field, both options will come up, immediately alerting the user that there is in fact a choice. Judging from other responses in this issue thread alone, I'm clearly not the only one who disagrees with this change, which seems to have been prematurely made without a proper Asking the developers to revert this change once again is probably too much to ask, but would you then please at least consider adding a parameter called "intellij_all" or something, so that people would have a convenient choice, without having to manually edit their. Why does the burden of having to uncomment all that unwanted stuff suddenly have to lie with those of us trying to keep things clean and wanting to follow generally accepted best practices? I was surprised and frankly disappointed when I suddenly saw this change after I had checked out a new. As already pointed out above, the documentation you referred to clearly started with the sentence " If you decide to share IDE project files with other developers.". iml files "is recommended by the official documentation" is simply not true.
As a good rule of thumb: if the CI server doesn't need it to build, run, test or deploy the code, then it has no business being part of the code base.Īnd your claim that including. In fact, it makes a lot of sense to do so, provided you keep it in a separate repository. I'm not saying you shouldn't place your project's IDE settings under version control. For many of us, it is considered a good practice to keep the code repository clean of IDE-specific metadata, any IDE-specific metadata, period.