Mike Kupfer wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Roland" == Roland Mainz <roland.mainz at nrubsig.org> writes:
>
> Roland> but I fear which possible "precedent" could be constructed from
> Roland> that (like "... lets rename all files which are unused from ${i}
> Roland> to ${i}.unused ..." or something like that) ... ;-( ).
>
> Clearly marking unused files as unused makes it easier for people to
> come up to speed with the source. So while I concede that such a
> precedent would make more work for you, it's not an entirely bad thing.
The question is (as you said earlier) where we should draw the line.
Somehow the discussion about the Makefiles has more or less worn out my
shields (e.g. renaming the Makefiles to "Makefile.att" (and remove
"probe.win32" to make Peter happy) _may_ be OK for me if this is
___explicitly___ _not_ used as precended to strip or rename any further
upstream files (violations are punished by Bel-Shamharoth himself))) but
I still fear the precedent generated by this.
BTW: Would it work to add a clear AT&T header to the AT& Makefiles ?
----
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
/O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090
(;O/ \/ \O;)
