[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: address@hidden

From: Peschko, Edward
Subject: Re: address@hidden
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:22:37 -0700

> Because even trivial features are expensive...

sheesh. you've got all the hooks there to do it, the logic
there to do it, it would probably be 5 lines of code, and
about 4 lines of documentation. That's expensive? Its the
philosophical part you don't like, and you really should
let the user decide on whether they want software that DWIM.

Anyways, I agree with you Kaz... That's how I was *using*
.cvsignore - thinking that was giving me some sort of protection
against certain files being checked in. Until I looked at the
code, and saw it was doing no such thing - and proceeded to
look at the cvs trees that I'd set up (but no longer actively
maintain) and found out they were cluttered with junk. 

.cvsblock was just a sap for backwards compatibility.
I like your sap for backwards compatibility better.


reply via email to

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