>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Grouping the properties that affect the rolling strategy and separating
> them from the others makes sense to me.
It may be even a nice to implement it like that. This opens ways to
something like this:
But I don't know if that really fits into the "
On 2011-09-19, Dominik Psenner wrote:
>> 3) - Any date portion in a file name be prefixed with a . as if it were
>> an extension.
> +1, but one should be able to change the "spacer" character. "." is a
> nuisance to regex parse a logfile, where "-" is tangentially easier.
+1 for an option to rep
On 2011-09-18, Roy Chastain wrote:
> After having spent two weekends looking at and playing with the code, I
> have decided that I do not have clear understanding of my target.
Poor you.
> Given that it appears that I am going to break the internal contract for
> RFA and the ambiguity in the cur
>> Should it be modifiable? I'm unsure.
It would be easier to code if it were always > 0, but there is a nicety
to having it negative when only a few iterations of the file are being
kept.
That said, I would have no problem removing it as a configuration
parameter.
>>+1, but one should be able to
I do not see a good reason to include them in the binaries. If the
samples are on the website only, we only have to worry about one place
to update them and no one would be looking at an out of date same from
an old download.
--
Hi all,
I'm currently trying to make the necessary site modifications for the
1.2.11 release (for example we no longer build with VS < 2008) and
wondered whether we intend to bundle the examples with the binary
distributions. If not, I can remove all links to them as the source
dirstribution will
