Message ID | cover-0.5-00000000000-20210721T231900Z-avarab@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Makefile: "make tags" fixes & cleanup | expand |
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 01:23:01AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > The big win here is that none of the tags targets depend on "FORCE" > anymore, so we'll only re-generate them if our sources change. > > For v2, see > https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover-0.5-0000000000-20210629T110837Z-avarab@gmail.com/ > > This fixes the series per feedback from Jeff King and Ramsay Jones, > i.e: > > * In v2 the 3/5 broke things in a way that 4/5 fixed, that's now > re-arranged and fixed. Thanks. Aside from some cscope appending arcana I found, these look good to me. I have no opinion on "cscope*" versus "cscope.out", except that it is not worth anybody's time to argue about. :) -Peff
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > Thanks. Aside from some cscope appending arcana I found, these look good > to me. I have no opinion on "cscope*" versus "cscope.out", except that > it is not worth anybody's time to argue about. :) Thanks, sorry and I agree with both counts.
Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 01:23:01AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > The big win here is that none of the tags targets depend on "FORCE" > > anymore, so we'll only re-generate them if our sources change. > > > > For v2, see > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover-0.5-0000000000-20210629T110837Z-avarab@gmail.com/ > > > > This fixes the series per feedback from Jeff King and Ramsay Jones, > > i.e: > > > > * In v2 the 3/5 broke things in a way that 4/5 fixed, that's now > > re-arranged and fixed. > > Thanks. Aside from some cscope appending arcana I found, these look good > to me. I have no opinion on "cscope*" versus "cscope.out", except that > it is not worth anybody's time to argue about. :) I agree with that as well.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > The big win here is that none of the tags targets depend on "FORCE" > anymore, so we'll only re-generate them if our sources change. Very nice. I think most of the nitpicking in the comments is not really worth the trouble (either for or against), there is one comment from Jeff King regarding multiple runs of the xargs command that I think is valid, but too hypothetical for me to care about (ARG_MAX is 2097152 on my system), so it would be nice to fix, but not necessary. Reviewed-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>