On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger < jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:30:53AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Gour <g...@atmarama.net> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:44:25 -0500 > > > >>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Hipp wrote: > > > > > > Richard> I'm wondering if I should make ".fos" the default instead of > > > Richard> "_FOSSIL_". Would xargs have picked up on the "dot-file" named > > > Richard> ".fos" as it did with _FOSSIL? Would the use of .fos instead > > > Richard> of _FOSSIL_ have prevented this problem? > > > > > > From the darcs' days I recall that its author decided to use _darcs > > > instead of .darcs due to possible problems with Windows OS > > > > > > > That was my concern too. So maybe I make .fos the default on unix and > > _FOSSIL_ the default on windows? > > ...and set the hidden file attribute for it on Windows. > Ugh, don't hide the file please. That'll be annoying. I'm not sure this is a big problem on Windows given the lack of native xargs and basic inability of most Windows users (devs included) to write filesystem iteration scripts like presented above. I think the _FOSSIL_ name is fine. The dot file naming convention is almost completely foreign to windows. In fact, it's not possible to create a new dot file using Windows Explorer. One has to use the command prompt or an application.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
