Sorry for not getting back sooner, been way behind on email. IIRC you
already reverted the 4 and I agree with blocking out cobertura.ser
(didn't consider it in my response since it wasn't part of your
commit :)
On 11/08/2009, at 11:09 AM, John Casey 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]
