[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: retrograding with convert-ly
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: retrograding with convert-ly |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:41:38 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:11:29AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> -d means no update in version header unless changes happen. That is
> also usually what you would want. Without -d, the version of the last
> applicable rule is used instead (rather than the last rule actually
> causing a change).
>
> In the case that no rule would be applied because the file is already
> newer than all rules, I think it would make sense _not_ to change the
> version header even without -d.
If we did that, then people would complain "I'm using 2.16.2 but
convert-ly only updates my file to 2.16.0!". This could be
avoided by printing a message to the effect of "no changes to
apply; not changing version number in the file".
As a general rule, I don't think it matters whether we make -d or
not -d the default; what matters most is providing good
information to the user in some combination of program output
and/or documentation.
- Graham
- retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/14
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, Colin Hall, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, Colin Hall, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/16
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/16
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/16
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/17
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, Colin Hall, 2012/07/16