Re: Gnus overrides.texi and WEBHACKDEVEL

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>
> Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 09:18:37 -0600
> Cc: ding@gnus.org
> 
> EZ> More generally, what is a user supposed to do if she does want to put
> EZ> something on gnus-overrides.texi?  That's a versioned file, so "bzr
> EZ> status" will show it as modified, and there's still a danger of having
> EZ> it committed inadvertently.  How is this better than just modifying
> EZ> gnu.texi or any other file directly?
> 
> The user wouldn't touch them, they are for the developers.

By "user" I _did_ mean developers in this case.  How do we prevent the
danger of committing a modified file?  Versioned files that are
modified are generally meant to be committed at some point.

If you want to have a file that Gnus manuals will include, how about
modifying Makefile.in to create an empty file during the build
procedure, if such a file does not already exist?  Then this file will
not have to be part of the repository, and developers who want to
build modified manuals will create a non-empty file before building
the manual.

> I guess "gnus-includes.texi" would be a less confusing name?

"gnu-manual-options.texi" sounds better.  But its name is not a
terribly important issue.