Stephen Leake, 2007-07-08: > Matthieu Moy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> xmtn's implementation of both of these functions will ask between two >>> and three questions: >>> (1) Ignore %s? >>> (2) Save buffer .mtn-ignore? >> If the .mtn-ignore had no unsaved changes before the operation, I >> don't see any case where you would answer "yes". > > Hmm. Why would you _not_ save a file? I don't see any case where you > would answer "no" to (2).
You want to say "no" if you already have unsaved modifications to the file .mtn-ignore that you still don't want to save. If you save the file, the changes will affect any subsequent mtn invocation, and maybe you don't want that yet. > In any case, a user option to provide the default answer is easy. If > you really meant "yes" above, I guess I need to modify my option to > allow that. In this case, it looks like the right thing to do is to ask the question only if the file .mtn-ignore was already open and modified. This will skip the question almost always, but alert the user in the cases where it may not be what he wants. Do we really need an option? I'd prefer to have as few options as possible; options make the space of possible configurations larger and can thus make the code harder to maintain. Christian. _______________________________________________ Dvc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/dvc-dev
