Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
GitHub is where the world builds software
Millions of developers and companies build, ship, and maintain their software on GitHub — the largest and most advanced development platform in the world.
WIP: Remove .gitkeep files and mention self-explanatory alternative #571
I took a look at your changes and I think you have proposed an interesting idea. Making a README.md file does have a lot of advantages over the .gitkeep and I may start doing this myself. However, I don't think this is a good idea to incorporate into the lesson since lots of people still use .gitkeep files to keep empty folders under version control and if this line is removed from the lesson, the learners may not know what they are seeing when they encounter them in the wild. I think you have a good idea but this lesson may not be the right place for it. Also, I don't know if this is a real convention or just my habit but have only seen readme and README, not the camel case ReadMe.
I think it may be too much to add to the lesson but here are some reasons I have used .gitkeep
Those are weird reasons that go beyond the scope of the lesson but they are just to show that there are some good reasons for .gitkeep files
I think perhaps others should weigh in here but I do still see value in the use of
Thanks for your replies! Yeah, the file should maybe named
I would argue that code which can take care of creating any folders it needs is better, because it's not coupled to the external factor of said file.
Sure, we want to be lazy, but coupling the test code to an external factor that is not really needed in the repo is a bit too lazy IMHO.
Functions that OTOH create files, but not the needed directory, should rather be identified and improved than worked around.
munkm left a comment
I agree with @nhejazi about keeping