Re: [Gnu-arch-users] unmatched files

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:44:50PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 21:30, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 
> > I use automake and explicit tagging for most of my serious projects,
> > and =tagging-method is invaluable. I don't know what you're talking
> > about.
> 
> What do you do with it?  

Find potential source files with missing explicit tags. If I dodn't
have =tagging-method tuned correctly, the list runs to over 50 lines;
with it, I rarely see more than a dozen files, and files that I forgot
to add are easy to spot.

> So far I just mostly spent probably a half hour trying to get my junk
> regexp right, left it alone for a long time, then got a conflict merging
> changes to it between two branches, and spent several unproductive
> minutes staring at it trying to figure out the difference between them.

Never edit =tagging-method on a branch >:)

> > > The default should be
> > 
> > Sentences starting with these words are usually false.
> 
> Ok, I didn't justify my statement, so I guess it's fair you don't
> justify your response.
> 
> My justification for those defaults is that it allows me to take my
> typical Automake-using project and dump it into tla without having to
> mess with =tagging-method at all.  Since I don't need the
> =tagging-method services, that's a win.

Glancing briefly at the categories I currently have in arch, a little
over a third would fit this. Statistically speaking this is totally
meaningless, but it illustrates the point fairly well - barring
significant evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to think these
defaults are better than any others.

[There are essentially only two practical ways to select defaults for
anything when creating software: arbitrary, or random].

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature