On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> > wrote: >> Oh, it looks like the choice of name >> >> '<SHA1>.pristine' >> >> was not discussed in that thread. Two or three of us thought that >> seemed like a sensible choice of name. The other reasonable option is >> to keep the old extension so that the new names would be >> >> '<SHA1>.svn-base' >> >> The advantage would be that if anyone has already set up their tools to >> filter out '*.svn-base' they wouldn't have to change that configuration. >> >> Any opinions? > > +1 for .svn-base. No need to change just to change it. -- justin
+1 for .pristine, just to spite Justin. :P But really, we've completely rewritten where all the metadata and pristines are stored, and now we're debating a hidden file extension? Just do the work and be done with it. -Hyrum
