[ sorry for catching up with such an old thread only now ] On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 08:08:37AM -0700, Simon Michael wrote: > On 5/17/14 11:50 PM, Martin Blais wrote: > >I wonder if a more general rule-of-thumb can be inferred here: "if you > >can make do with subaccounts, you should always favor that over tags or > >other mechanisms." Not sure if always true? But surely something to > >think about. > > That has always been my default stance. > > I'm only half way through this thread, but it contains a wealth of > information. We need a curator of useful mail list knowledge.
I'm always struggling between tags and (sub-)accounts, and I'd love to be able to apply such a general rule. The main problem with (sub-)accounts, though, is that if you want to use --strict (which is a good general sanity rule), you have to declare all of them. And that quickly becomes painful. I was wondering if some of the pain points could be relieved by allowing wild-card account declarations, e.g.: account Foo:Bar:Baz:* meaning that under that hierarchy account names are free for all. That would partially defeat the usefulness of --strict, of course. But it will do so only within a limited scope, IMHO striking a good compromise. Has something like that been ever considered/discussed? If so, I'd welcome pointers to the relevant discussions, to catch up with community knowledge on this issue. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . [email protected] . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ledger" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
