From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 04/11] Makefile: apply dependencies consistently to sparse/asm targets Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:15:02 -0400 Message-ID: <20120620221502.GB3302@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120620182855.GA26948@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120620183133.GD30995@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120620211225.GD6142@burratino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Thomas Rast , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 21 00:15:14 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ShTBB-0000L0-4w for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:15:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758101Ab2FTWPH (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:15:07 -0400 Received: from 99-108-225-23.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.225.23]:39345 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754850Ab2FTWPG (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:15:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 30940 invoked by uid 107); 20 Jun 2012 22:15:06 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:15:06 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:15:02 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120620211225.GD6142@burratino> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:12:25PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > > These > > flags may sometimes require extra dependencies to be added > > (e.g., like GIT-VERSION-FILE; this is not the case for any > > of the updated lines in this patch, but it is establishing a > > style that will be used in later patches). > [...] > > This patch explicitly does not update the static header > > dependencies used when COMPUTED_HEADER_DEPENDENCIES is off. > > I think you are asking the commit message to do more work than it > needs to, and to answer questions that no one just trying to > understand the patch would ask. :) Yeah, when writing out the full discussion I was awfully tempted to go with your simplified explanation. ;) In fact, it's the later commits that really make use of this explanation when they add lines. > Wouldn't it be simpler to put the ground rules in a comment or a > document somewhere under Documentation/ where they can be easily > found? I think a comment in the Makefile might make sense (especially if it introduces the section as "and this is the place to put weird target-specific cppflags and dependencies"). Would you mind taking a stab at writing it? I feel like the explanation I wrote in the commit message ended up quite dense and possibly not very informative, and a fresh brain and fingers might turn out something a little more reasonable. -Peff