On 1/22/25 22:22, Bruno Haible via Gnulib discussion list wrote: > [...] to call locally modified source code > "dirty"?!
IMO "dirty" is not a wrong word here. With regards to software deliveries, the tarball shall be made from an officially committed (and pushed, for what it's worth) version. Shipping a tarball with local changes which are not committed and pushed is ... yes, dirty work. > I guess, it's the mindset of a package author who thinks he's > the only one who is able to produce correct code, and all other people's > modifications must be something to warn against, hence the attribute > "dirty". It's not about the source code or it's quality per se, but the state of the local working tree: in such a status, one cannot produce a neat and clean release package (or executable as intermediate build result) in the sense that it could be released properly to the public. Hence, "dirty" is the correct term, and it's a well-known term in the context of version control systems. In contrast, "-modified" does not tell that much. Modified compared to what? Hence naming a tarball "-modified" does not tell the story clear enough IMO. Have a nice day, Berny
