[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: name of `backup' inventory type
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: name of `backup' inventory type |
Date: |
15 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0900 |
Robert Collins <address@hidden> writes:
> > How about using a more neutral name for this inventory type, say `local'
> > (and of course keep `backup' for compatibility)?
>
> backup seems fine to me.
>
> precious matches what I'd expect of 'local' in terms of behaviour...
> and your .o files should be precious IMO.
Here's the table in =tagging-method:
# category: copy locally? safe to clobber? archive?
#
# junk no yes no
# backup no no no
# precious yes no no
# source yes no yes
The difference between `backup' and `precious' is that precious files
are `copied locally' in <some circumstance> -- I'm not sure when this
is, but maybe something like when you use --dir to output to a new tree.
I don't know about you, but I _don't_ want .o files copied, they're
purely local, easily recreated if necessary. For that matter, I might
indeed _want_ backup files copied, but in any case, they're more
precious than .o files in my mind.
Anyway, the point is that I don't think it's some sort of wacky edge
case to have a file that you really do want to be local, but isn't a
backup file, and the name backup does a poor job of reflecting this.
This is in stark contrast to the category names, which seem to reflect
their typical uses quite well.
-miles
--
`To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to,
all of life's problems' --Homer J. Simpson