| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 24/07/12 05:13 PM, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 04:32:00PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I've often seen cases like these handled by keeping a referenced |
| 8 |
>> file where it's traditionally expected to be found, but leaving a |
| 9 |
>> comment in that file explaining that the content of that file had |
| 10 |
>> been moved to a new location, and the old location is |
| 11 |
>> deprecated. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Would that work for a circumstance like this? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Not really, no- it would mean the PM would have to parse/merge both |
| 16 |
> locations, rather than just looking for the file in one of two |
| 17 |
> spots. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> ~brian |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
...if the file was empty except for comments saying where the new |
| 23 |
location is, there would be nothing to parse. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 28 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlAP99QACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAMYgD9GVy2oqiSjbPO0+doxmM0bpyB |
| 31 |
vR/sX4zgzcYCdXBW/5oBAJddUSALwz3aoWiL6T9SsADTDVrN7VFNyyRd9sXc6WAf |
| 32 |
=MmwG |
| 33 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives