Closed Jafaral closed 3 years ago
Will do update_rev as as well and push it to the same PR.
It looks fine. I have one question, which is can we find a more neutral word than "dirty"? I considered the following alternatives (in order of preference, best first) -modified -local-edits -edits -altered -editted
Is there any particular reason for wanting a "more neutral" word than "dirty"? Within the context of what is being done, it gives a very clear indication that something needs to be done as a priority. Whereas, the words suggested are mild in comparison, almost of no significance to the process.
Is there any particular reason for wanting a "more neutral" word than "dirty"? Within the context of what is being done, it gives a very clear indication that something needs to be done as a priority. Whereas, the words suggested are mild in comparison, almost of no significance to the process.
Well, to me (at least) the word "dirty" implies there is something wrong. There's nothing wrong with building a system that has local modifications (which is all the --dirty flag is indicating) so I think that a more accurate description, which will be readily understood by people who aren't that familiar with git's terminology, is preferable.
I also disagree that "something needs to be done". The real purpose is to alert the maintainers (if the user has a problem) that they will not be able to reproduce the system that the user is running.
Thanks for the background to your thinking here. I don't know if it would change my thinking here, but I can understand where you are coming from. I still think that your selection of alternatives do not fulfil your purpose though. If you purpose is to alert the maintainers in this fashion, a more descriptive term would be better. Not that I can think of any at this point so I'll leave it to you and Jafar to make your decision. It is not affecting me personally at this time.
See individual commit msgs for details. Short summary: