Git Repository Hygiene Ignore rules, line-ending normalization, README discipline, lockfile policy, staged-diff review, and the first clean repository commit.
Git Repository Hygiene A professional repository is defined as much by what it refuses to track as by what it commits. This book establishes ignore rules, line-ending policy, documentation, the lockfile decision, and the first clean commit.
Create .gitignore Use a repository-level .gitignore for files that every contributor should keep out of version control.
# Dependencies node_modules/ .pnpm-store/
# Framework/build output .next/ dist/ coverage/
# Logs *.log
# Environment secrets .env .env.* !.env.example
# OS noise .DS_Store Thumbs.db
Important Git rule Adding a path to .gitignore does not untrack a file that was already committed. Ignore rules affect intentionally untracked files. If a secret was committed, removing it from the working tree is not enough; treat it as exposed and rotate the secret.
Create .gitattributes Windows and Linux use different conventional line endings. Git can normalize text in the repository so diffs do not become dominated by CRLF/LF noise.
* text=auto
*.sh text eol=lf *.bat text eol=crlf *.cmd text eol=crlf
*.png binary *.jpg binary *.jpeg binary *.gif binary *.pdf binary
Git documentation recommends text normalization and allows file-specific eol rules. We use a small policy: text is normalized automatically, Unix shell scripts stay LF, Windows batch scripts check out as CRLF, and obvious binary formats are marked binary.
filters untracked normalizes text
.gitignore .gitattributes
Create README.md # TaskFlow
## Course baseline
## Workspace
## Current phase
The README does not need to predict every future module. It records the repository purpose, baseline and current structure. It will evolve as the product evolves.
Commit the lockfile pnpm-lock.yaml belongs in version control for this application repository. package.json expresses dependency intent; the lockfile records the exact resolved graph. Together they make installs reviewable and reproducible.
Inspect before staging
git status
git diffBefore git add, read the change set. This habit becomes more valuable as generated framework files appear in later phases.
Stage intentionally and inspect again
git add .
git status
git diff --stagedThe staged diff is the exact content about to become history. If node_modules, a secret, or a generated build folder appears here, stop and correct the repository policy before committing.
First repository checkpoint commit git commit -m "chore: initialize taskflow workspace"
The commit message describes the outcome rather than the commands used. A future reader should understand why this point in history exists.
Expected committed files .gitattributes .gitignore .node-version README.md package.json pnpm-lock.yaml pnpm-workspace.yaml
Where are apps/ and They are empty, so Git may not show them. That is correct. Phase 03 and packages/? Phase 04 will create real packages inside apps/.
Secret-management preview There is no .env file in Phase 02, but our ignore policy is already ready for later phases. We allow .env.example because it documents variable names without containing credentials. This is preventive engineering: establish the safe default before secrets arrive.
Checkpoint • git status is clean after the checkpoint commit. • node_modules and build outputs are ignored. • .env and .env.* are ignored, but .env.example can be committed. • .gitattributes normalizes text and marks binary formats. • pnpm-lock.yaml is committed. • No empty-directory placeholder files were added only for appearance.
Git Repository Hygiene matters because it changes a real boundary in TaskFlow. The goal is to understand the inputs, owner, observable output, and failure modes before adding more abstraction.
Restate the goal of “Git Repository Hygiene” as one observable behavior. Write the success signal before touching code.
Trace the boundary map: service intent → repository contract → adapter → Prisma/Postgres → domain result. Mark the one boundary this lesson changes.
Inspect the current repository state and record the exact files, route, table, or runtime involved. Avoid creating an abstraction before you can name the existing owner.
Implement the smallest vertical slice. Add one coherent change, run the narrowest verification command, and read the output before continuing.
Connect the slice to TaskFlow’s phase artifact: TaskFlow repository root with apps/web, apps/api, shared packages, workspace metadata, root scripts, and clean Git hygiene.. Verify behavior from the outside as a user or API client would.
Create one controlled failure that is safe to reproduce. Predict the symptom first, capture evidence, locate the earliest broken boundary, then fix only that cause.
Close the reference and rebuild or explain the core change from memory. Record what you would monitor or test before trusting the same change in production.
export interface TaskRepository {
findById(id: string): Promise<Task | null>;
listForWorkspace(input: TaskListQuery): Promise<TaskPage>;
save(task: Task): Promise<void>;
}Do not copy this as a finished answer. Predict what each boundary does, type the smallest useful slice, run it, then compare the result with your prediction.
Return to the nearest observable boundary: input, network, process log, database, or rendered UI. Compare actual evidence with the predicted path.
Change one variable at a time and reproduce the original failure after the fix; otherwise you have correlation, not diagnosis.
Without copying the final source, create a second small scenario that applies “Git Repository Hygiene” to a different TaskFlow resource or input. Write the acceptance criteria first, implement it, and provide the evidence that each criterion is satisfied.
Add root dev/build/typecheck/test scripts that delegate to workspaces.
Use the smallest change that demonstrates this lesson. Stop after it works and capture evidence.Installing app-only dependencies at workspace root
Predict the symptom before causing the failure. Then locate the earliest boundary where reality diverges from expectation.Why does this responsibility live here, what input does it trust, what output proves success, and what would go wrong if another layer owned it?
If your explanation is vague, repeat the boundary trace before moving on.Close the reference. Reproduce the core idea from memory or explain the exact request/data flow aloud. Then check your diff or notes for accidental shortcuts that bypass validation, authorization, error handling, or verification earned in earlier phases.