Hi! On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 09:57:55AM +0200, Oliver Schmidt wrote: > As far as I know the argumentation goes along these lines: If a > program requires a directory to write i.e. its log files into it's > probably a good idea to have the program create that directory if not > already present. In the same way if a build script requires a > directory to write an object / a binray into it's probably a good idea > to have the script create that directory. But why is it a good idea? When reading your explanation, I can see that it says that something questioned by me is a good idea. But it doesn't tell me why someone thinks it's a good idea. As I see it, this is a decision that places an additional burden on the user, so I would expect that there are distinct advantages in return. > GIT et al don't see > themselves as helpers to programs or build scripts but as content > management systems. Exactly this is the reason why I'm wondering. If git is a content management system, and my content includes an empty directory, why isn't it managed? I have cases where there are no build scripts or whatever, just people who want to track changes in data files and who expect to place it into a specific directory. These people aren't programmers, they just expect the directory to be there. Please note that I'm not trying to bash git. It seems to have one or two features that subversion doesn't have. I'm just trying to understand a design decision that makes life harder for users of git. > Please note that this isn't my personal opinion. Ok, recorded :-) Regards Uz -- Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Wed Aug 22 11:09:48 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-08-22 11:09:51 CEST