Should I put included code under SCM?

I'm developing a web app.

If I 开发者_如何学JAVAinclude a jQuery plugin (or the jQuery file itself), this has to be put under my static directory, which is under SCM, to be served correctly.

Should I gitignore it, or add it, even if I don't plan on modifying anything from it?

And what about binary files (graphic resources) that might come with it?

Thanks in advance for any advice!

---

My view is that everything you need for your application to run correctly needs to be managed. This includes third-party code.

If you don't put it under SCM, how is it going to get deployed correctly on your production systems? If you have other ways of ensuring that, that's fine, but otherwise you run the risk that successful deployment is a matter of people remembering to do all the right things, rather than some automated low-risk "push the button" procedure.

If you don't manage it under SCM or something similar, how do you ensure that the versions you develop against and test against are the same? And that they're the same as production? Debugging an issue caused by a version difference you don't notice can be horrible.

---

I generally add external resources to my project directly. Doing so facilitates deployment and ensures that if someone changes the version of this file in your project, you have a clear audit history of what happened in case it causes issues in the code that you've written. Developers should know not to modify these external resources.

You could use something like git submodules, I suppose, but I haven't felt that this is worth the hassle in the past.

Binary files from external sources can be checked in to the project as well, although if they're extremely large you may want to consider a different approach.

---

There aren't a lot of reasons not to put external resources like jQuery into your repo:

1. If you pull it down from jQuery every time you check out or deploy, you have less control over which version you're using. This holds true for most third-party libraries; you probably don't want to upgrade your libraries without testing with your code to see if it breaks something.
2. You'll always have a complete copy of your site when you check out your repository and you won't need to go seeking resources that may have become unavailable.

For small (in terms of filesize) things like jQuery and images, I'd just add them unless you're really, really concerned about space.

---

It depends.

These arguments relate to having a copy of the library on your system and not pulling it from it's original location.

Arguments in favour:

1. It will ensure that everything needed for your project can be found in one place when someone else joins your development team. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to scramble around looking for the right versions of libraries in order to be able to get something working.

2. If you make any modifications to the library you can make these changes to the source controlled version so when a new version comes out you use the source control's merging tools to ensure your edits don't go missing.

Arguments against:

1. It could mean everyone has a copy of the library locally - unless you map the 3rd party tools to a central server.

2. Deploying could be problematical - again unless you map the 3rd party tools to a central server and don't include them in the deploy script.