Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Fwd: not changing default =tagging-method

[Brian May]

>>>>> "martin" == martin f krafft <address@hidden> writes:

    martin> Dear arch users and developers, In [0], I proposed to have
    martin> vim's swap files to be added to =tagging-method per
    martin> default. I asked Robert Collins of bazaar as well as
    martin> Andrew Suffield, the Debian maintainer of tla. While
    martin> Robert implemented my suggestion almost immediately (at
    martin> least he said so), Andrew Suffield came up with the
    martin> following response, which is all too typical for him:

    >> The default =tagging-method isn't changing. Lusers can use
    >> their own damn editor.

I got the same response too. Which kind of confused me, because my
request had nothing to do with editors. Maybe I was right, he *did*
close the wrong bug report by mistake.

Anyway, the bug I filled was bug #146480,
<URL:http://bugs.debian.org/146480>. I asked for clarification, and he
gave me clarification. Unfortunately, he did so via private mail, so I
can't repost his answer. However, it was along the lines of "upstream
won't make the change and I don't want to go against upstream". This
seem fair enough.

I am kind of confused though, my tla =tagging method (on an old
archive) on some of my archives already seems to support vim swap
files, but as a "backup" file not a "precious" file:

backup 
^.*(~|\.~[0-9]+~|\.bak|\.swp|\.orig|\.rej|\.original|\.modified|\.reject)$
unrecognized ^(.*\.(o|a|so|core|so(\.[[:digit:]]+)*)|core)$

I notice with a recent baz archive it is:

backup 
^.*(~|\.~[0-9]+~|\.bak|\.sw(o|p)|\.orig|\.rej|\.original|\.modified|\.reject|\.(o|a|so|core|so(\.[[:digit:]]+)*))$|^core$
unrecognized ^$

What is the difference between a .swo and a .swp file?

I guess my above quotes above serve to demonstrate different people
have different opinions of the usefulness of the "unrecognized"
category.
-- 
Brian May <address@hidden>