> The ~foo as backup convention is not part of any standard.
Emacs does foo~ by default, not ~foo.
In either case, you're not really supposed to edit files in sites-enabled. That directory is expected to contain symlinks to files in sites-available. I'm not going to say with any certainty that one of the reasons for this indeed is that the pattern (which was used by apache as well - and perhaps other things before it) protects against accidentally reading backup files, but it's not impossible.
So there's definitely a case of holding it wrong if you end up with backup files in that directory.
I liked doing symlinks so the site configuration is with the rest of the site, but that was before containers when it was common to host a bunch of sites on one instance apache or nginx.
> The ~foo as backup convention is not part of any standard.
> [...]
> It's the second thing I fix in either Vim or Emacs: Put backup files in a central location. (The first is proper indentation/spacing rules.)
Perhaps not a standard, but you yourself admit it's the default behavior.
Though I agree that the simple mechanism acts ... er,... simply, shouldn't it be at the very least aware of the default behavior of common editors?
But it DID contribute to the conversation ... it corrected an error/misunderstanding. If I didn't think I was contributing, I wouldn't have commented. You seem to have a different ethic.
I won't comment further, as we are now off topic (thanks to you).
Using hidden files is a stronger convention, e.g. .foo.swp or .foo~.
But nginx's sites-enabled also doesn't filter those.
It's a very simple mechanism that assumes what you put in that directory is a website configuration.
Adding backup files here and there is considered spam, no matter how old it is.
It's the second thing I fix in either Vim or Emacs: Put backup files in a central location. (The first is proper indentation/spacing rules.)