> On 8 Jul 2023, at 02:05, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 09:23:38AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 7 Jul 2023, at 01:05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> On the whole, I think I'd vote for blocking .DS_Store only, even
>>> in HEAD. (IIRC, I thought differently to start with, but today
>>> I'm feeling conservative about it.) If there are other special
>>> file names on other platforms, we could add some more targeted
>>> exceptions; but dropping all hidden files seems more likely to
>>> break things than be helpful.
>>
>> I think the case for skipping all hidden files is that it would offer more
>> consistency with other serverside filesystem reads are performed. After
>> .DS_Store I would think that editor swapfiles would be other likely culprit of
>> hidden-but-not-belonging files.
>
> .DS_Store is not the only hidden file pattern that could be used by a
> filesystem for its metadata. And I don't quite see what we gain by
> only ignoring it, letting the others be. My take would be to just
> ignore all of them, and I'm OK even if it means to do so only on
> HEAD per the argument of being careful with stable branches.
Judging by the thread there seems to be concensus on skipping .DS_Store files
in all branches, with a few +1's for skipping all hidden files in HEAD. I'll
prepare a patch for the former and we can pick up the discussion on the latter
ones that's done.
--
Daniel Gustafsson