Fine with me. On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:09 AM, John Casey<[email protected]> wrote: > Re-posting to get this out of the original message thread, so it doesn't > hide on some email clients: > > --- > > This is something I wanted to bring up on the dev list, actually. I simply > went through all of the source-release assembly descriptors used to release > various plugins, and compiled all of the exclusion patterns. > > I'm not sure it's a good idea to leave these or any of them out, but I can > definitely see that at least in the case of the cobertura.ser file, it is > probably not the intention of the user to leave it in. > > As for the rest, I'm fine with dropping them; I wanted to get the opinion of > others... > > Brett Porter wrote: >> >> On 07/08/2009, at 4:11 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> + <!-- misc --> >>> <exclude>**/cobertura.ser</exclude> >>> + <exclude>**/*.bak</exclude> >>> + <exclude>**/*.diff</exclude> >>> + <exclude>**/*.patch</exclude> >>> + <exclude>**/*.log</exclude> >> >> I feel like these could start knocking out legitimate files. >> >> Are they really necessary since it is usually built from a clean checkout? >> >> - Brett >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
