Don't create .gitkeep files, use .gitignore instead (2023)

Post by selridge » Sat, Feb 21, 2026, 2:28 AM UTC

jkubicek wrote: post #17

I'm not sure if I'm the one to blame for this or not, but the earliest reference to ".gitkeep" I can find online is my 2010 answer on Stack Overflow: https://stackoverflow.com/a/4250082/28422 If this is all my fault, I'm sorry.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 21, 2026, 2:38 AM UTC

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 21, 2026, 2:49 AM UTC

dwattttt wrote: post #13

akerl_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

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

Post by himata4113 » Sat, Feb 21, 2026, 3:09 AM UTC

drdec wrote: post #26

andybak wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you might not have a build script?

Then why do you need a build directory?

Post by akerl_ » Sat, Feb 21, 2026, 3:26 AM UTC

dwattttt wrote: post #13

akerl_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

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