Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File naming conventions
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@cashpoolcomps.com>
To: arch <gnu-arch-users@gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <D41EE15A-2186-11D9-A882-000A957659CC@spy.net>
References: <1098074588.29545.40.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com>
	<1098092294.5219.8.camel@johannes>
	<C671551A-212F-11D9-A63A-000393CFE6B8@spy.net>
	<20041018181822.GD9196@puritan.pcp.ath.cx>
	<8D7869BC-213A-11D9-A63A-000393CFE6B8@spy.net>
	<1098141434.19575.42.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com>
	<20041018233511.GA31642@fencepost>
	<0D336108-2162-11D9-A63A-000393CFE6B8@spy.net>
	<41745D7F.5000102@johnmeinel.com>
	<D41EE15A-2186-11D9-A882-000A957659CC@spy.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1098160529.19575.116.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:35:29 +1000
Precedence: list
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2736
Lines: 64
> > 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. arch-dustin@spy.net--c--b--v 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...


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/