[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Oct 2016 08:57:27 -0700 |
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Eric Blake <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'm planning to script the
> conversion of all the tags, but am trying to figure out if it is worth
> back-dating the tags, and whether an unsigned annotated tag or a simpler
> lightweight tag is the better thing to push in place of each tag that
> gets corrected.
I have found that it is worth the small additional effort to back-date
tags when doing that. Otherwise, they will all be misleadingly listed
with the date of the conversion, and in some clients will be shown as
"new".
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, (continued)
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Eric Blake, 2016/10/21
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Reuben Thomas, 2016/10/21
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Paul Eggert, 2016/10/21
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Reuben Thomas, 2016/10/21
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Paul Eggert, 2016/10/21
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Eric Blake, 2016/10/21
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Reuben Thomas, 2016/10/21
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Eric Blake, 2016/10/21
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Eric Blake, 2016/10/21
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Bernhard Voelker, 2016/10/22
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Eric Blake, 2016/10/25
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Eric Blake, 2016/10/21
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Bruno Haible, 2016/10/21
- Re: Automatically-generated regexp documentation, Eric Blake, 2016/10/21