On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 15:34 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> If there were no exclude file, then the admin can reasonably
> feel that it is not contributing to the list of excluded file.
> Thus no error on setting optional is reasonable.
>
> But what about an existing exclude file without access
> permissions?  If that was not an error, how would the admin
> know the exclude file was not contributing anything to the
> list of excluded files??

That's a good question, but I don't think it directly affects the issue.
The way I'm looking at it is this: the docs claim that "optional" will
ignore errors if it can't read the exclude list file. Regardless of
whether or not this is a good design decision, if that's the intended
functionality, it should work regardless of if the permission problems
are on the file itself or on the enclosing directory (structure).

Does that make sense?

Graeme