[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] unmatched files
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] unmatched files |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:36:41 -0800 (PST) |
> From: address@hidden
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:26:19PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
> > > From: Colin Walters <address@hidden>
> > > Given that I've explicitly
> > > told tla what files are source, why should I have to redundantly
> > > classify files via regexp as well?
> > Because it would have been tactically better for me to release
> > (tagless) `inventory' as a separate tool, before arch, touting its
> > virtues for purposes such as `make dist' targets.
> > And then it would just happen to be an external dependency of a
> > separately releaseed `mkpatch/dopatch' where tags would be introduced.
> > And then arch would have been released just as bookkeeping tools for
> > those tools.
> I simply fail to follow you here, what on earth are you talking
> about.. I find the issue Colin states very true, its very
> confusing to see tagging and regexpes fighting, certainly when
> its possible to _not_ commit explicitly added files because your
> regexpes say they are not elligable (see the relevant
> bugreport).
It's a layered design. The regexps say which are the "source files"
(among a few other categories). The tags give them name-independent
identity.
The naming conventions are useful for other things besides revision
control even though they aren't packaged separately.
-t
- [Gnu-arch-users] unmatched files, Colin Walters, 2003/11/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] unmatched files, Colin Walters, 2003/11/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] unmatched files, Tom Lord, 2003/11/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] unmatched files, Andrew Suffield, 2003/11/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] unmatched files, Colin Walters, 2003/11/16
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] unmatched files, Andrew Suffield, 2003/11/16