Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File naming conventions

[Zenaan Harkness]

> > But I also tend to work in trees with many nested projects, so I don't 
> > have just one top-level directory.
> >
> > Heck I just looked in the man page and I think:
> >
> > ctags -R . --exclude="*{arch}*"
> > actually this also works, but if you have a strange hierarchy it might 
> > fail:
> >
> > ctags -R . --exclude="*arch*"
> >
> > This one does have the advantage of ignoring .arch-inventory and 
> > .arch-ids as well, though probably ctags wouldn't understand those 
> > files and ignores them anyway.
> 
>       This is another workaround with a different syntax.  Perhaps I 
> should've used gnu grep as an example instead, since (at least in my 
> manpage), there is no --exclude functionality.  I'm not convinced that 
> having the --exclude functionality in every application would even be 
> all that desirable, but having to use it all the time seems like it 
> would.

find . -print0|xargs -0 egrep -v *arch*\|*rej\|*bak|grep -n my-grep


> > Now that all that is said, I personally don't care whether it is 
> > .arch, or {arch}. I know when I first started I thought .arch would 
> > have been better. But now, I don't really care. I think {arch} stands 
> > out nicely when browsing. In Windows the .files aren't hidden anyway 
> > so there isn't much of a benefit there.
> 
>       I think a lot of people have got themselves used to the idea that the 
> {arch} directory will be there and accept it.  Some say they even like 
> it.  I'm really not that interested in the browsing aspect, though.  If 
> I want to know that a directory is arch managed just by looking at it, 
> then I can add my own flag there...one more informative for my needs 
> (i.e. address@hidden or something).

I think we are going to see at least _two_ orders of magnitude greater
user numbers ... do we really want 100 times the number of complaints
coming through (I know I know, when someone sees a complaint, they're
unlikely to make the same complaint within a certain timeframe... that's
not the point).

> > I *really* like the ",blah" to mean this is a temporary file, and have 
> > started using it very frequently. I never use the + or =, though. I'm 
> > not really sure what is what (I think + is precious, ie not source, 
> > but I'm at a loss for =)
> 
>       I'm right with you on this one.

Sounds like a common experience for many of us. I do like having
such conventions, even if they require a little learning, just not
if they might cause particularly 'bad' side effects when not known
about...