4 ms·
> The same argument is made for not adhering to the XDG spec for user configuration files I think it's a fundamental difference in that the project repo should
by Legogris 6y ago
> The same argument is made for not adhering to the XDG spec for user configuration files
I think it's a fundamental difference in that the project repo should be self-contained and "owned", whereas arbitrary software I run really shouldn't be putting files in my home directory.
In a software repo, anything inside it belongs to the project.
- pm215 6y agoI think there are similarities -- the project's root is the project's, so why does eg the Travis CI system get to insist on having a config file sat in the project root?
- pas 6y agoWhere should it go? Just like the gitlab-ci.yml, it handles things related to the whole repo, it basically runs a script in the root of the repo anyway. Sure, supporting other paths is useful (eg. in case of a monorepo), but this default seems sane. Though I'm interested in where others move it, and why.
- dijit 6y agoit's pretty common to have a .ci folder for your build scripts. But nothing is fundamentally wrong either with XDG-esque directory structures. .config/travis/ .ci/travis/ all the same to me, as long as it's consistent.
- rumanator 6y ago> the project's root is the project's, so why does eg the Travis CI system get to insist on having a config file sat in the project root? Because it defines the project's CICI pipeline? Aka how the project is built, tested, delivered, and deployed? I mean, that's a more fundament part of the project than which files should be automatically ignored when committing stuff to git (i.e., .gitignore)