Rename .gitignore to .npmignore in package if no .npmignore found

[isaacs]

When packaging up a folder, if there's a gitignore file and no .npmignore file, add it to the tarball as .npmignore.

Always exclude .gitignore files from packages.

This is to better support the "check node_modules into git" approach.

[glenjamin]

+100 on this.

I've lost count of the number of times I've managed to check in a dependency without realising that its dependencies are missing!

[cespare]

This "feature" threw me off for a long time when trying to package my first node library.

I am generating the code from coffeescript, so while my package.json contains this:

"directories": {
  "lib": "./lib/coffee-scope"
}

my .gitignore has a /lib/ entry (because I don't want the generated code checked in). The result is that the packaged library is missing /lib/ and is therefore completely broken.

Regardless of whether my approach is ideal, the behavior is very confusing. I wouldn't expect that my .gitignore would have an effect on how npm behaves.

I would suggest one or more of the following changes:

• Don't automatically rename .gitignore to .npmignore.
• If you do rename .gitignore to .npmignore, remove entries which would exclude files and directories specifically required in package.json.
• Document this feature in npm help json. I read that help file thoroughly and explicitly chose not to include a .npmignore file for my project, and only realized that this .gitignore magic was happening after I found this github ticket.

[philc]

+1 @cespare . Please reopen for consideration.

[isaacs]

The directories.lib field is completely for human consumption. npm does not do anything interesting with it.

.gitignore files are only renamed to .npmignore when they're treated as such. If a .npmignore file is already present, then .gitignore files are excluded. This is to make it easier to check node_modules folders into source control for deployed apps.

Doc patches are always welcome, but the behavior is not going to change.

[cespare]

Thanks for clarifying, @isaacs.

I made a pull request for a tweak to the docs that would have helped me out, at least.

I can see why removing .gitignore might be desirable, assuming you want to encourage people to check in their node_modules folder, but this

.gitignore files are only renamed to .npmignore when they're treated as such.

doesn't really make sense to me. How can you assume that the files that people want git to ignore are the same that they don't want included in their package?

[isaacs]

Given the number of complaints I'd received from people who accidentally published stuff that's .gitignore'd, vs the number of complaints from people who accidentally didn't publish stuff that's .gitignore'd once the change was made, yes, the data is overwhelmingly not in your favor here. There's no way to not confuse anyone. Even that sentence is sort of confusing.

[JaysonRaymond]

This design really becomes a bit draconian when creating yo modules to setup new projects - particularly where you want to include a .gitignore file - this hidden 'feature' breaks my yo generator that has a .gitignore (by renaming it to .npmignore).

Besides, I don't want node_modules checked in - I want to force developers to define explicit versions in their package.json and require an 'npm install' upon code checkout to assure packages are explicitly listed or the build fails (particularly on the build server). We have a private repo and caching proxy to assure these dependencies aren't lost and our more frequent installs don't impact the public npm repo.

[callumacrae]

This is breaking my yeoman generator, as well: Lostmyname/generator-component#1

Is there any reason to completely remove the .gitignore? It only saves a few bytes, but it messes up Yeoman and ember generators (see some of the issues above).

[kosz]

Yepp also breaking my generator. I have a templates/.gitignore file, which in fact is just a template file. I guess I should just rename it to gitignore in it's template form. Either way, a bit annoying to have third party code screw with your files.

[UltCombo]

@JaysonRaymond @callumacrae @kosz Can we center the generators discussion at #7252? It would be nice if we could come up with a solution that solves both use cases.
Thanks!