Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Auto-generated source files

[Thomas Zander]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 13 October 2003 21:42, Christian Lynbech wrote:
> Have you considered to use the taggingline/implicit methods? The idea
> here is that you put some magic string into the source files that are
> really source files. The generated java files will not have the magic
> string and thus will not be considered as a source file (paraphrasing
> from memory, but the basics should be good enough).

I tried; but arch refuses to commit since there are source files present 
which don't have that string.  I find that message very shortsighted and 
impractical.  Indeed I would love to have your solution work; but I could 
not find out how.

> I am not completely sure that I understand your resistance to the
> regexps in =tagging-method.

The reason is that there are several developers in different experience 
levels adding these files to CVS. When they can't commit because the tool I 
asked them to use refuses to do so;  I get left with the problem.
To ask them to add this to the =tagging-method file will provide other 
problems; most have never used advanced reg-exps before and if you have 
some 70 of these files in your CVS (expected to grow to at least 150) it is 
not only impractical; but less-advanced users will also not be able to use 
this either.
I want a tool that helps me fix these problems; not one I have to work 
around.

>  Is it because the files to ignore changes
> somewhat often? You will of course need to massage the =tagging-method
> regexps each time a new .ui is added, but is it really that much
> harder than having to change the code? I do not find the regexps that
> hard to maintain.

They become hard to maintain if you have a 3500 chars line (a find/wc gave 
me 3198 actually); and the ones adjusting it dont have ANY reg-exp 
experience.

> Another option would to do a small tool which would generate the
> necessary regexps and add them to =tagging-method automatically.

True. That is something to consider, but i view this as a workaround, I'd 
rather have a good solution that is transparent to the user.

Thank your for your reply!
- -- 
Thomas Zander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/i6VvCojCW6H2z/QRArqVAKDGJjqWcwLdvh0cFJgeeWbitPpNTQCgtBIC
vTe2mFZXGcQaeu9nxkC0Hro=
=7Sco
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----