------art_342_16262927.1331053639133
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary---art_343_30171878.1331053639133"

------art_343_30171878.1331053639133
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 11:02:42 AM UTC-5, short... / googlemail.com wrote:
>
> Thomas Sawyer wrote in post #1050299:
> > Now, obviously not all of these will apply to every project. But I can
> > imagine that given enough time and a rather thorough developer, a
> > project could acquire configurations for a couple dozen tools. Think
> > code
> > coverage, code analysis, IDE/RAD configuration, etc. I suspect there is
> > a
> > saturation point --at some point it just becomes too much to remember.
>
> Why remember?  Files are in the file system or VCS repository where you
> can find them.  I am not sure I understand the issue you are having.
>
 
I just mean remembering all the tools, how to use them, configure them and 
what they are for.

 

> > Even
> > so, it could amount to quite a few files, well exceeding the number of
> > toplevel "meat" files of a project.
>
> I don't see why this should be a problem.  Even more so: why are these
> configuration files not "meat"?  That would mean you could have the
> project without them and not lose anything.  I doubt that.  Reminds me
> of people coming out of a meeting and saying "now off to some _real_
> work" - that's just nonsense as communication is a large part of our
> profession - as much as hacking.
>
Think of it this way. The files that change the most are the `lib/` and 
`test/` files. But they are not given the "prime real-estate" of top-level 
files. Rather they are categorized into an allotted subdirectory. 
(Interestingly C projects actually do put source files at the top). So why 
are config files, which rarely change once properly configured, always in 
our face? And if that wasn't the point why are they more often dotfiles 
which are intended to be *hidden*? Maybe if they were actually hidden, but 
except for using `ls` every other tool I use pretty much shows them. So 
they aren't really.

In the end I'd prefer to see a dedicated directory that became the 
convention, and baring that at least just stop with all the .dotfiles and 
Configfiles and just use regular old files. Let `Gemfile` be `gemfile.rb` 
and `.yardopts` be `yardopts.txt`, etc.


------art_343_30171878.1331053639133
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 11:02:42 AM UTC-5, short... / googlemail.com wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">Thomas Sawyer wrote inost #1050299:<br>&gt; Now, obviously not all of these will apply to everyroject. But I can<br>&gt; imagine that given enough time and a rather thorough developer, a<br>&gt; project could acquire configurations for a couple dozen tools. Think<br>&gt; code<br>&gt; coverage, code analysis, IDE/RAD configuration, etc. I suspect there is<br>&gt; a<br>&gt; saturation point --at some point it just becomes too much to remember.<p>Why remember? &nbsp;Files are in the file system or VCS repository where you<br>can find them. &nbsp;I am not sure I understand the issue you are having.</p></blockquote><div>&nbsp;</div><div>I just mean remembering all the tools, how to use them, configure them and what they are for.</div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><p>&gt; Even<br>&gt; so, itould amount to quite a few files, well exceeding the number of<br>&gt; toplevel "meat" files of a project.</p><p>I don't see why this should be a problem. &nbsp;Even more so: why are these<br>configuration files not "meat"?nbsp;That would mean you could have the<br>project without them and not lose anything. &nbsp;I doubt that. &nbsp;Reminds me<br>of people coming out of a meeting and saying "now off to some _real_<br>work" - that's just nonsense as communication is a large part of our<br>profession - as much as hacking.</p></blockquote><div>Think of it this way. The files that change the most are the `lib/` and `test/` files. But they are not given the "prime real-estate" of top-level files. Rather they are&nbsp;categorized&nbsp;into an&nbsp;allotted&nbsp;subdirectory. (Interestingly C projects actually do put source files at the top). So why are config files, which rarely change once properly configured, always in our face? And if that wasn't the point why are they more often dotfiles which are intended to be *hidden*? Maybe if they were actually hidden, but except for using `ls` every other tool I useretty much shows them. So they aren't really.</div><div><br></div><div>Inhe end I'd prefer to see a dedicated directory that became the convention, and baring that at least just stop with all the .dotfiles and Configfilesnd just use regular old files. Let `Gemfile` be `gemfile.rb` and `.yardopts` be `yardopts.txt`, etc.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p></blockquote>
------art_343_30171878.1331053639133--

------art_342_16262927.1331053639133--