[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla1.1 plans

From: Miles Bader
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla1.1 plans
Date: 16 Sep 2003 12:56:53 +0900

David Brown <address@hidden> writes:
> Opencm has an .opencm-rules file which can contain lines that state
>    exclude re
>    include re

Perhaps that sort of structure is better for the arch-specific
per-directory files (which I've been calling `.arch-ignore', but maybe
that name is not appropriate considering...); not exclude/include
specifically, but the more arch-style stuff from =tagging-methods:

  junk RE
  precious RE

the idea being that anything left `unrecognized' after being run through
the per-directory config file would then be passed on to the
project-global =tagging-method rules.

I'm not sure what the per-directory file should be called though;
something like `.arch-tagging-method' seems obvious, but as discussed
before on this list, I'd like to move away from using the term `tag' in
this context -- even though I've gotten very used to it, and it seems
natural to me, I still think it's a bad idea in general due to the
conflict with other RCSs.  How about just `.arch-naming' or even
`.arch-config' and leave open the possibility to add other stuff to the
file later (hmmm, would per-directory tagging-methods work?!?).

BTW, it seems sometimes more convenient to write such regexps as
multiple entries, e.g.:

  junk \.foo$
  junk \.bar$

... and have them automatically concatenated into `\.foo$|\.bar$'; is
this currently supported in =tagging-method?  Would it be feasible to
support it?

Occam's razor split hairs so well, I bought the whole argument!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]