The idea is that instead of adding a nonsense file, you use the native .gitignore functionality.

".gitkeep" is just a human thing; it would work the same if you called it ".blahblah".

So their pitch is that if you want to explicitly keep the existence of the directory as a committed part of the repo, you're better off using the actual .gitignore functionality to check in the .gitignore file but ignore anything else in the directory.

I don't find it amazingly compelling; .gitkeep isn't breaking anything.

▲

dwattttt 6 hours ago | parent [-]

This still confuses me. Do you mean to say "use the .gitignore functionality, and check in the .gitkeep file"?

▲

4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

akerl_ 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No. Use a .gitignore instead of .gitkeep. Instead of checking in build/.gitkeep, check in build/.gitignore.

	▲	dwattttt 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't know that I like this approach. It certainly works, but it's not specifically what (people expect) a .gitignore file to be used for. That confusion isn't good: https://thecodelesscode.com/case/222 and https://thecodelesscode.com/case/223