Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

On 10/6/06, Martin Bähr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 03:03:25AM +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > > The nice and friendly warning will tell them what happened, > > true. > need to be sure they see the warning though. Yes. And a small percentage will still miss it. So it sho

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 03:03:25AM +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > The nice and friendly warning will tell them what happened, true. need to be sure they see the warning though. might not happen if the first shell process is not interactive > and they can copy the files back. yeah, but the n

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

On 10/6/06, Martin Bähr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:06:21PM +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > > I don't like the idea of having two standard user configuration files > > at all, I'm afraid. I'd rather have only ~/.config/fish/fish than > > both. > > fair point. i agree.

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

On 10/4/06, Martin Bähr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:47:41AM +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > > But I strongly dislike moving the > > users files. It's bad for your health. > > which is why it may be better now than later. > it will only get worse. Agreed. If this chang

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:06:21PM +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > I don't like the idea of having two standard user configuration files > at all, I'm afraid. I'd rather have only ~/.config/fish/fish than > both. fair point. i agree. > Sorry, I'll try to be less humor impaired in the future. :-

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

On 10/4/06, James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:25:06PM +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > > --- Martin Bähr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > skrev: > > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#FTN.AEN540 > > > It is recommended that files be stored in > > > subdirectories

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

in other words: do not create multiple files in the users homedirectory,but please move all of them into one directory called .fish (and not .fish.d as the .d is redundant)Ditto. I fiddle with config files enough that I put use the '-a' flag on my listings pretty constantly... so .fish added a sign

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

2006/10/2, Martin Bähr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Yes! +500 from me to this idea. I like the [\.]etc suggestion as well. I'd prefer .etc to etc though, if we're going to go along with that. But, yes, please gather all these files into single directories. -- Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

On 10/3/06, Axel Liljencrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I feel that a ~/.fish configuration file makes much > more sense than a ~/.fish.d/fish file, it's too much > to write for a file that you occasionally want to > edit, and two files in ~ isn't that much. I feel that the conceptual simplicit

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:47:41AM +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > But I strongly dislike moving the > users files. It's bad for your health. which is why it may be better now than later. it will only get worse. > Absolutely, but there is still _some_ resistance > against breaking compatibility

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

--- Martin Bähr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:25:06PM +0200, Axel > Liljencrantz wrote: > > One note here: The way I read the part of the > standard > > you quote, it does not make any mention either of > the > > use of either the '.d' or the 'rc' suffix > > right, that

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:58:26PM -0400, James Vega wrote: > If you were to go any route that involved a . directory in ~ which > wasn't .fish*, I'd suggest following the freedesktop.org/XDG standards. > They're pushing for a .config directory which applications could put > their user specific con

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:25:06PM +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > --- Martin Bähr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > skrev: > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#FTN.AEN540 > > It is recommended that files be stored in > > subdirectories of /etc rather > > than directly in /etc. > > > > fish is

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:25:06PM +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > One note here: The way I read the part of the standard > you quote, it does not make any mention either of the > use of either the '.d' or the 'rc' suffix right, that was my personal opinion in tht matter. > _My_ interpretation

Re: [Fish-users] fish file locations

--- Martin Bähr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 01:41:44AM +0200, Axel > Liljencrantz wrote: > > > i have a discussion item that will force a > filename > > > change in anycase, > > Ok. Is it something like timestamping commands, or > > giving each command a unique id? > > n

[Fish-users] fish file locations

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 01:41:44AM +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > > i have a discussion item that will force a filename > > change in anycase, > Ok. Is it something like timestamping commands, or > giving each command a unique id? no, it is nothing about the format ir information stored, but si