| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] hg ignore libxl lex/yacc detritus
> Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] hg ignore libxl lex/yacc
> detritus"):
> > Changeset 21000 checked those files into the tree, so adding them to
> > .hgignore would be very bad form. I've missed checking in bits of
> patches
> > due to that before.
>
> Quite.
>
> > If they are getting modified (i.e., regenerated) as part of your
> build then
> > that is a bug. Possibly the rules to generate them should be
> commented out
> > in the checked-in Makefile in that case... Whatever, I leave it to
> Stefano
> > and Ian to make a decision on that. But the right patch won't touch
> > .hgignore.
>
> They should be regenerated if the corresponding input files
> (libxlu_cfg.l and libxlu_cfg.y) have changed. I think make will avoid
> rebuilding them if they haven't. So the make lines shouldn't be
> commented out.
Hmmm... that means they get regenerated when an "hg update"
is done that updates the input files, resulting in the
files being found by hg diff, which appears to be
what prompted my .hgignore patch.
Why were the output files checked into the tree? The
comment "for benefit of prehistoric people" isn't very
illuminating and implies to me that this is just a
temporary workaround to avoid adding another tool/download.
(And for those without flex(?), will result in an inconsistent
build anyway?)
At a minimum, good form would require that any patch submitter
for the input files also submit the patch for the output
files, true?
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home