Roland Mainz wrote:
> Mike Kupfer wrote:
>>>>>>> "Roland" == Roland Mainz <roland.mainz at nrubsig.org> writes:
>> Roland> but I fear which possible "precedent" could be constructed from
>> Roland> that (like "... lets rename all files which are unused from ${i}
>> Roland> to ${i}.unused ..." or something like that) ... ;-( ).
>>
>> Clearly marking unused files as unused makes it easier for people to
>> come up to speed with the source. So while I concede that such a
>> precedent would make more work for you, it's not an entirely bad thing.
>
> The question is (as you said earlier) where we should draw the line.
> Somehow the discussion about the Makefiles has more or less worn out my
> shields (e.g. renaming the Makefiles to "Makefile.att" (and remove
> "probe.win32" to make Peter happy) _may_ be OK for me if this is
> ___explicitly___ _not_ used as precended to strip or rename any further
> upstream files (violations are punished by Bel-Shamharoth himself))) but
> I still fear the precedent generated by this.
I fail to see how removing source we don't (and in the case of the win32
bits will not ever) use is a problem. Is there even documentary value to
such a thing? Does their not being present really make updates more
difficult? (how?)
I don't particularly like the Makefile bits, obviously, but I can at least
somewhat understand their documentary value (though, of course, they'd have
that exact same value while not being in the tree.)
-- Rich
