[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [REJECT: address@hidden (default naming convent
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [REJECT: address@hidden (default naming convention changes)
Thu, 6 May 2004 18:04:31 +0100
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 12:23:30PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > archived?
> > casually deleted?
> > copied with "the good stuff?"
> A significant reason why it took me a while to begin understanding the
> actual meaning of those things is that I couldn't se any reason why Tla
> would ever copy trees or remove files it didn't create.
> Now, admittedly, I still don't see any reason for it either so I treat
> precious/junk/backup as completely equivalent. But at least I now know that
> copying only happens if I use the --dest flag (which I never use) and that
> deleting never happens either and is only meant for "in case some day
> someone decides to use `tla inventory | xargs rm' instead of just 'rm' for
> the `clean' target".
Historically, larch used to copy trees a lot more. It doesn't matter
so much nowadays.
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
Description: Digital signature
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [REJECT: address@hidden (default naming convention changes), Colin Walters, 2004/05/05