> I am inclined to accept this feature (with a few modifications), but > wanted to see what you might think. I understand that this is not the > most general solution -- domains might be a better choice -- but what I > imagine is that if we did manage to implement such a system, we would > always be able to translate the ignore mechanism into the more general > terms.
I do like this. I agree with Jason, I would prefer this over the borin file in some cases. The only issue I'd like to bring up is that we should make sure to avoid conflicts with the naming for patch ignoring, if we ever get that implemented. I don't think that feature would use a specific command, so using 'ignore/unignore' would be okay. But I just wanted to bring this up incase anyone else saw a bigger problem with it. > One question for the community: > Do we actually want an actual ignore/unignore command, > or would an ignore file suffice? > > I would suggest that an ignore file is plenty, and that two extra > commands would just be clutter. I don't feel very strongly about this, although I do worry about darcs command clutter. It isn't bad now, but most programs seem to 'evolve' until you need to run grep a few times on the command list to find what you want. -- Zachary P. Landau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG: gpg --recv-key 0xC9F82052 | http://divineinvasion.net/kapheine.asc
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
