On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote: > On Fri, December 2, 2011 11:39 pm, Matt Welland wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, December 2, 2011 7:26 pm, Stephan Beal wrote: > >> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Why on earth would you want to? > >> >> > >> >> I know others have offered suggestions and explanations for how to do > >> >> it, > >> >> but I would never have a "dotfile" (or a symlink for that matter) in > >> a > >> >> repository, so I'm really asking about the use-case. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > Think ".gitignore" and friends. Some tools support files like that for > >> > holding various metadata (some non-git tools support .gitignore). > >> > > >> > http://gitready.com/beginner/2009/01/19/ignoring-files.html > >> > > >> > >> Oh, I know about those. But they are one of > >> > >> 1) needed at build or install time, in which case the build and install > >> scripts create them > >> > >> 2) part of my common development environment, in which case they are not > >> part of what I am developing and do not belong in its repository > >> > > > > Do I detect a hint of judgment in your post Eric? > > Of course. It's what I do, and what I think should be done so I will, > from time to time, say so. Others are free to disagree; and to negotiate > if we are working together. > > > Items 1. and 2. are true in your world perhaps but certainly often > > not in mine. I lost an hour of my time because fossil silently ignored > > dot files that are a required critical part of a process that I moved > > from an ancient SCM into fossil. > > You won't do that again will you? :) It's part of knowing what your > tools do and what assumptions they make. For any non-trivial tool, > you will sometimes learn the hard way. >
Well designed tools generally re-use the knowledge that people have garnered along the way but also keep up with the times. It would be have been a red flag for me if by default fossil only handled 8.3 DOS files without a special switch --allow-long-filenames. Design choices reflect on the values, knowledge and perceptiveness of the developers and defaulting to 8.3 would be a sign of "not Unix friendly" for me. Is fossil ignoring dotfiles on recursive add a red flag for others? I doubt it but it did take me by surprise. I put together a poll as I'm quite curious, how do others perceive this design choice? http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4eda64df4fb7b0e46a6feea2 Choosing to ignore dotfiles is a mildly surprising choice to me. But I think silently ignoring them is a rather poor choice. However, for me it was little more than an annoyance. I noticed this some time ago and just put "WARNING: fossil by default silently ignores dotfiles when adding recursively, use the --dotfiles to add them." in my training documentation and moved on. > Personally I prefer my tools to let me know if i say "add" and they > choose not to do so however the --dotfiles switch suffices. How verbose should a tool be? There will probably always be cases the tool > author(s) never even thought of. And is it really the tool anyway? For > "fossil add *" on *ix, fossil doesn't know that it is skipping dotfiles, > because the shell has already done that. > The use case under discussion is in adding a directory with all it's contents - not in adding files with "*". I don't think anyone in this thread is expecting * to expand to dotfiles. Here is how some of the tools I happen to be familiar with behave: git - adds the dotfiles subversion - adds the dotfiles monotone - ignores .svn and .git but tells you about it. adds other dot files. cvs - I'm pretty sure .* is not part of the default ignore list, i.e. adds dot files And of course all copying tools such as rsync and tar capture the dotfiles. Can someone point out some tools for revision control or copying data that silently ignore dotfiles? > There are a few interesting arenas where "source" is not C, nor any > other language you are likely to deal with as a "normal" programmer and > yet these arenas can make good use of a tool like fossil and some even > pay pretty dang good and maybe even deserve a bit of respect :) Not arguing with that at all. > > Eric > > -- > ms fnd in a lbry > > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
