![]() If you need to ignore certain file patterns (e.g., backup files for an exotic editor), you can even use a per-user file like ~/.config/git/ignore. Luckily, Git offers alternative ways to prevent accidental file check-ins. When one is switching branches or updating the local working tree, one has to often stash the file (with local changes), switch the branch, or update and then unstash (potentially with merge conflicts). It could, for example, reveal customer information (this issue is not only about file contents, but also about the customer's name, which can reveal information as metadata). That practice would create a huge mess and churn.Īdding file names and paths can also reveal information that should not be public. Just imagine what would happen if hundreds of collaborators put their specific paths into. gitignore file only works well with items that are common for all collaborators, such as files and directories within the project. Unfortunately, there are limits to this approach. gitignore file to Git like any other file in the project. To persist those changes (and to share the common file contents with collaborators on the project), one usually adds the. One can put all of those files and paths into a. Other candidates are files with local configurations. The obvious candidates are compiled binaries when you only want to check in the source code. gitignore NOT CHOKE on the BOM so I can use it the way it is supposed to work.Git has a handy feature when it comes to preventing accidental file check-ins when the files are meant to stay local. The BOM is a perfect solution for this so I recommend everybody to use it.Īnyway I am not asking you to change your habits. But the world has changed since then and by now almost all programs correctly handle Unicode and the BOM and the bigger problem is the encoding getting lost when we move text from one system to another, open with different progams etc. And indeed if you are from the US and ASCII is enough for you than that's good advice. The recommendation is there to help UTF-8 text that only contains ASCII to be correctly interpreted by programs that do not support Unicode. I know that the Unicode FAQ does not recommend adding a BOM. But really, instead of trying to add metadata about the encoding to all systems that store text content, we should use this mechanism, standardized at the lowest possible level, the Unicode standard itself, to supply metadata about the encoding. HTTP has a Content-Type header, but what about the file system? Or database fields? MySQL allows you to specify the encoding when creating the table etc etc. Without a BOM, software has to guess at the encoding. and then software like Git comes along that just breaks when you save with the BOM. I keep telling them that the BOM, as it is required to be supported by the Unicode standard, should never have a negative impact. The only thing we can do (and I'm trying to) is convince the whole world to, when in doubt, assume Unicode. it assumes latin (it has to make assumptions as there is no BOM) gitignore file as Unicode (but without BOM) that has only ASCII text in it Because as long as there aren't any characters used outside of US-ASCII, there is no way for an editor to know what the encoding is. Without it, many editors will, once opened, save the file in the wrong format afterwards. (Unicode Standard 5.0, ch.3, C11, emphasis mine) Specifications for the use of the byte order mark established by this standard for that When a process interprets a byte sequence which purports to be in a Unicode characterĮncoding scheme, it shall interpret that byte sequence according to the byte order and The Unicode spec requires all software that supports Unicode to correctly deal with the BOM. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |