tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ignacio J. Ortega" <>
Subject RE: .sh extension
Date Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:48:48 GMT
i'm not going to -1 it , as i'm not a *nix user nor administrator, in
any form, but i think is much more clean to have all the files with
extension in the cvs, in sake of the better comprehension of what it's
on CVS, i would not oppose to make the dist target delete the extensions
of shell files if anybody feels this is needed..

But I think that to have an untyped file in CVS is not the better
practice.., we need CVS for clarity and not knowing what a files has
inside without having a look .. doenst seems to me that will add
anything, instead this change will make more obscure the intention of
this files.. 

you know write once READ everywhere :) 

Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Keith Wannamaker []
> Enviado el: miƩrcoles 17 de abril de 2002 16:02
> Para: Tomcat-Dev@Jakarta.Apache.Org
> Asunto: .sh extension
> What is the reason for the '.sh' extensions on our scripts?
> I found this comment from the ant project:
>   "Note: Current Jakarta practice is to name the Unix shell 
>    script with a .sh extension. This goes against Unix 
>    conventions and is unecessary. Testing has shown that the
>    leaving the extension off on Unix will not interfere with
>    the working of the Windows batch file."
> Does anyone else have a preference on this?  What do you
> think of dropping the .sh in either 3 or 4?
> Keith
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message