On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:41:07AM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: > The suggestion that "git clean" be a solution appears to have caused > some level of outrage. However, at least for '3.0 (git)', all the > sources are known to git, and 'git clean' is a reliable and simple > solution to the problem. The alternative, manually reverting all > the changes, is both complex and error-prone. I'm not sure I see the > problem with what is an obvious improvement to the process.
I'd favor a solution that avoids having to fix hundres, or thousands, of upstream packages. For example, instead of building directly in the working tree, we could export the sources to a temporary directory and build there. Voila: no build artifacts to clean up at all. -- Freedom-based blog/wiki/web hosting: http://www.branchable.com/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
