[Gnu-arch-users] Re: name of `backup' inventory type

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 18:25, Miles Bader wrote:
> The difference between `backup' and `precious' is that precious files
> are `copied locally' in <some circumstance> -- I'm not sure when this
> is, but maybe something like when you use --dir to output to a new tree.

Exactly then. It used to be more common in the larch days. tla /may/ do
it behind the scenes in other operations - there's no guarantee that
'backup' matching files will exist after an operation.

> I don't know about you, but I _don't_ want .o files copied, they're
> purely local, easily recreated if necessary.  For that matter, I might
> indeed _want_ backup files copied, but in any case, they're more
> precious than .o files in my mind.

Thats your choice then. I'd want them copied, so that I don't have to
rebuild them all.

> Anyway, the point is that I don't think it's some sort of wacky edge
> case to have a file that you really do want to be local, but isn't a
> backup file, and the name backup does a poor job of reflecting this.
> This is in stark contrast to the category names, which seem to reflect
> their typical uses quite well.

I get that. I just think that local isn't a better name than backup.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part