[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: retrograding with convert-ly
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: retrograding with convert-ly |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:45:48 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:11:29AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> -d means no update in version header unless changes happen. That is
>> also usually what you would want. Without -d, the version of the last
>> applicable rule is used instead (rather than the last rule actually
>> causing a change).
>>
>> In the case that no rule would be applied because the file is already
>> newer than all rules, I think it would make sense _not_ to change the
>> version header even without -d.
>
> If we did that, then people would complain "I'm using 2.16.2 but
> convert-ly only updates my file to 2.16.0!".
Which is exactly what is happening when the last rule of convert-ly is
for 2.16.0 while the current version is 2.16.2.
> This could be avoided by printing a message to the effect of "no
> changes to apply; not changing version number in the file".
Eluze converted for 2.15.41 with convert-ly from 2.15.41 and the file
already being at 2.15.41, and he complained that the version header was
set back to 2.15.40.
> As a general rule, I don't think it matters whether we make -d or not
> -d the default;
That was not even the question.
> what matters most is providing good information to the user in some
> combination of program output and/or documentation.
I prefer changing useless behavior over documenting it.
--
David Kastrup
- retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/14
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, Colin Hall, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, Colin Hall, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, Graham Percival, 2012/07/15
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/16
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, David Kastrup, 2012/07/16
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, -Eluze, 2012/07/17
- Re: retrograding with convert-ly, Colin Hall, 2012/07/16