Re: retrograding with convert-ly

[David Kastrup]

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