[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [REJECT: address@hidden (default naming convention
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [REJECT: address@hidden (default naming convention changes) |
Date: |
Wed, 5 May 2004 18:24:43 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 02:34:31PM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> > Then, shouldn't they belong to "precious" instead of "unrecognized" ?
>
> No. "Precious" implies that the files should be _copied_ whenever we
> make a copy of "the good stuff" from a tree. Those files are
> definately not (by default) in that category.
FWIW, I usually put them in `backup', for trees that I want to be able to
build in the source directory. [Now that I look I notice that I forgot to
take them out of `unrecognized' too, but I guess backup takes priority...]
[Sometimes I think `backup' doesn't get the respect it deserves, as names
like `precious' or `unrecognized' seem so much more inviting... :-| ]
-Miles
--
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. [George Carlin]
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [REJECT: address@hidden (default naming convention changes), (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [REJECT: address@hidden (default naming convention changes),
Miles Bader <=
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [REJECT: address@hidden (default naming convention changes), Colin Walters, 2004/05/05