On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 00:31 +0000, Martin Pool wrote:
> - If you do have any intentionally ignored files, as most nontrivial
> trees do, the count is just noise. Are you going to notice that it's
> 31 when it should be 27? Probably not.
>
> - We now have no ignores by default, unlike when this code was first
> written. So if nothing's configured to be ignored, there shoud be no
> surprises.
Actually... we write a default list to ~/.bazaar. So its not true that
we have no ignores by default.
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 00:31 +0000, Martin Pool wrote:
> - If you do have any intentionally ignored files, as most nontrivial
> trees do, the count is just noise. Are you going to notice that it's
> 31 when it should be 27? Probably not.
>
> - We now have no ignores by default, unlike when this code was first
> written. So if nothing's configured to be ignored, there shoud be no
> surprises.
Actually... we write a default list to ~/.bazaar. So its not true that
we have no ignores by default.
FWIW.
Rob