是否检入Pods文件夹取决于您，因为工作流程因项目而异。我们建议您将Pods目录置于源代码控制之下，不要将其添加到.gitignore中。但最终这个决定取决于你:

签入Pods目录的好处

克隆repo之后，项目可以立即构建和运行，甚至不需要在机器上安装CocoaPods。不需要运行pod install，也不需要连接互联网。 Pod构件(代码/库)总是可用的，即使Pod的源(例如GitHub)宕机。 克隆repo后，Pod工件保证与原始安装中的工件相同。

忽略Pods目录的好处

The source control repo will be smaller and take up less space. As long as the sources (e.g. GitHub) for all Pods are available, CocoaPods is generally able to recreate the same installation.(Technically there is no guarantee that running pod install will fetch and recreate identical artifacts when not using a commit SHA in the Podfile. This is especially true when using zip files in the Podfile.) There won't be any conflicts to deal with when performing source control operations, such as merging branches with different Pod versions. Whether or not you check in the Pods directory, the Podfile and Podfile.lock should always be kept under version control.

我建议使用GitHub的Objective-C gitignore。 具体来说，最佳实践是:

Podfile必须始终处于源代码控制之下。 Podfile。Lock必须始终处于源代码控制之下。 CocoaPods生成的工作区应该保持在源代码控制之下。 任何使用:path选项引用的Pod都应该保存在源代码控制下。 ./Pods文件夹可以保存在源代码控制下。

要了解更多信息，您可以参考官方指南。

来源:我是CocoaPods核心团队的成员，就像@alloy一样

尽管Pods文件夹是一个构建工件，但在决定是否将其置于源代码控制之下时，您可能会考虑以下原因:

CocoaPods is not a package manager so the original source of the library could be removed in future by the author. If the Pods folder is included in source control, it is not necessary to install CocoaPods to run the project as the checkout would suffice. CocoaPods is still work in progress and there are options which don’t always lead to the same result (for example the :head and the :git options currently are not using the commits stored in the Podfile.lock). There are less points of failure if you might resume work on a project after a medium/long amount of time.

TL;DR:当你跟踪Pods/文件夹时，项目更容易 从。当你不跟踪它的时候，就更容易在时间上进行改进 你在一个团队中工作。

虽然Cocoapods组织鼓励我们跟踪Pods/目录，但他们说这取决于开发人员根据这些利弊来决定是否这样做:http://guides.cocoapods.org/using/using-cocoapods.html#should-i-check-the-pods-directory-into-source-control

就我个人而言，我通常只跟踪那些我暂时不会再做的项目的Pods/文件夹。这样，任何开发人员都可以快速地从中吸取教训，并使用合适的cocoapods版本继续工作。

另一方面，我认为当你不跟踪Pods/文件夹时，提交历史会变得更清晰，更容易合并代码和审查其他人的代码。我通常在安装cocoapod库时设置它的版本，以确保任何人都可以使用与我相同的版本安装项目。

此外，当pod /目录被跟踪时，所有开发人员都必须使用相同版本的Cocoapods，以防止每次我们运行pod install来添加/删除pod时更改数十个文件。

底线:当您跟踪Pods/文件夹时，项目更容易从其中获取。当你不追踪它的时候，就更容易改进。

我属于不签入库的开发人员阵营，假设我们在其他位置有一个好的副本可用。因此，在我的.gitignore中，我包含了以下针对CocoaPods的行:

Pods/
#Podfile.lock  # changed my mind on Podfile.lock

Then I make sure that we have a copy of the libraries in a safe location. Rather than (mis-)use a project's code repository to store dependencies (compiled or not) I think the best way to do this is to archive builds. If you use a CI server for your builds (such as Jenkins) you can permanently archive any builds that are important to you. If you do all your production builds in your local Xcode, make a habit of taking an archive of your project for any builds you need to keep. Something like: 1. Product --> Archive

分配……提交到iOS应用商店/保存为企业或Ad-hoc部署/等等 在Finder中显示您的项目文件夹 右键压缩WhateverProject

这提供了整个项目的构建映像，包括用于构建应用程序的完整项目和工作区设置，以及二进制发行版(如Sparkle，专有sdk，如TestFlight等)，无论他们是否使用CocoaPods。

更新:我已经改变了我的想法，现在提交Podfile。锁定源代码控制。然而，我仍然相信pod本身是构建工件，应该在源代码控制之外进行管理，通过另一种方法，如CI服务器或如上所述的存档过程。

每件事我都要登记。(Pods/和Podfile.lock。)

我希望能够克隆存储库，并知道一切将只是工作，因为它上次我使用的应用程序。

我宁愿把东西卖进来，也不愿意冒险，因为不同版本的宝石可能会导致不同的结果，或者有人重写Pod的存储库中的历史等等。

就个人而言，这取决于:

为什么pod应该是repo的一部分(在源代码控制下)并且不应该被忽略

The source is identical You can build it right away as is (even without the cocoapods) Even if a pod is deleted, we still have its copy (Yes, this can happen and it did. In an old project where you want just a small change you would need to implement a new library to be able to even build). pods.xcodeproj settings are part of the source control as well. This means e.g. if you have the project in swift 4, but some pods must be in swift 3.2 because they are not updated yet, these settings will be saved. Otherwise the one who cloned the repo would end up with errors. You can always delete pods from the project and run pod install, the opposite can not be done. Even the authors of the Cocoapods recommend it.

缺点:更大的存储库，令人困惑的差异(主要针对团队成员)，潜在的冲突更多。