Quoting Andreas Tille (2013-01-16 15:11:22) > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 02:43:54PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > Sorry if I am dense... > > I like you because I know you are dense. ;-) > > > You agree that Files and Files-Excluded should ideally use same > > format, but you find it more important that Files-Excluded be > > flexible - even if Files as currently defined is not. > > > > Did I get that correct? > > > > In case it was unclear: I find it more important for Files and > > Files-Excluded to use _same_ format than for Files-Excluded to use > > an ideal format _now_. > > > > I find it better to discuss (later!) relaxing that Files format, > > which would then affect both Files and Files-Excluded, than to now > > try second-guess what Files format might be relaxed to allow in the > > future. > > Let me put it like this: My *current* implementation of uscan is > accepting [] wildcards. I would need to squeeze my mind to reduce the > functionality of find to implement the Files format definition. If > somebody volunteers to send me a patch I would consider applying it. > For the moment I see no need for action before a discussion has > started. > > I have documented the difference between the `Files` and > `Files-Excluded` formats in the Wiki[2] to make sure we will not > forget. Feel free to add a hint to advise users to refrain from using > [] wildcards. Fine with me that uscan can do more than needed. Fine with me if uscan Files-Excluded feature is promoted (e.g. in its manpage) to support same format as Files field. Problematic in my opinion if uscan *documented* format is a custom format. Fine with me if uscan *documented* format is the current Files field format, leaving that additional functionality as an undocumented (mis)feature. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature