[PATCH 0/1] Drop last MakeMaker reference

[PATCH 0/1] Drop last MakeMaker reference

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

Back when we stopped using MakeMaker, we forgot one reference...

Johannes Schindelin (1):
  mingw: drop MakeMaker reference

 config.mak.uname | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)


base-commit: 8104ec994ea3849a968b4667d072fedd1e688642
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-146%2Fdscho%2Fno-perl-makemaker-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-146/dscho/no-perl-makemaker-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/146
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH 1/1] mingw: drop MakeMaker reference

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

In 20d2a30f8ffe (Makefile: replace perl/Makefile.PL with simple make
rules, 2017-12-10), Git stopped using MakeMaker. Therefore, that
definition in the MINGW-specific section became useless.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 config.mak.uname | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/config.mak.uname b/config.mak.uname
index b37fa8424c..b88d8451fe 100644
--- a/config.mak.uname
+++ b/config.mak.uname
@@ -529,7 +529,6 @@ ifneq (,$(findstring MINGW,$(uname_S)))
 	NO_STRTOUMAX = YesPlease
 	NO_MKDTEMP = YesPlease
 	NO_SVN_TESTS = YesPlease
-	NO_PERL_MAKEMAKER = YesPlease
 	RUNTIME_PREFIX = YesPlease
 	HAVE_WPGMPTR = YesWeDo
 	NO_ST_BLOCKS_IN_STRUCT_STAT = YesPlease
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH 1/1] mingw: drop MakeMaker reference

[Jonathan Nieder]

Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:

> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
>
> In 20d2a30f8ffe (Makefile: replace perl/Makefile.PL with simple make
> rules, 2017-12-10), Git stopped using MakeMaker. Therefore, that
> definition in the MINGW-specific section became useless.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> ---
>  config.mak.uname | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

Yay!

Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>

Is there a way to automate checking for make variables that are set
but never used?

Thanks,
Jonathan

Re: [PATCH 1/1] mingw: drop MakeMaker reference

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Jonathan,

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> 
> > From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> >
> > In 20d2a30f8ffe (Makefile: replace perl/Makefile.PL with simple make
> > rules, 2017-12-10), Git stopped using MakeMaker. Therefore, that
> > definition in the MINGW-specific section became useless.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> > ---
> >  config.mak.uname | 1 -
> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Yay!
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>

Thanks!

> Is there a way to automate checking for make variables that are set
> but never used?

No, not that I know of...

The biggest problem is that we only add documentation to the beginning of
the Makefile by convention, and there is not really any consistent way to
parse that documentation to figure out what build variables are handled
currently.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Drop last MakeMaker reference

[Junio C Hamano]

"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:

> Back when we stopped using MakeMaker, we forgot one reference...
>
> Johannes Schindelin (1):
>   mingw: drop MakeMaker reference
>
>  config.mak.uname | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 8104ec994ea3849a968b4667d072fedd1e688642
> Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-146%2Fdscho%2Fno-perl-makemaker-v1
> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-146/dscho/no-perl-makemaker-v1
> Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/146

Good ;-)
Thanks.

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Drop last MakeMaker reference

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Junio,

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> writes:
> 
> > Back when we stopped using MakeMaker, we forgot one reference...
> >
> > Johannes Schindelin (1):
> >   mingw: drop MakeMaker reference
> >
> >  config.mak.uname | 1 -
> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >
> > base-commit: 8104ec994ea3849a968b4667d072fedd1e688642
> > Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-146%2Fdscho%2Fno-perl-makemaker-v1
> > Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-146/dscho/no-perl-makemaker-v1
> > Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/146
> 
> Good ;-)
> Thanks.

Gentle reminder that this has not made it into `pu` yet...

Thanks,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Drop last MakeMaker reference

[Junio C Hamano]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> Hi Junio,
>
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
>> writes:
>> 
>> > Back when we stopped using MakeMaker, we forgot one reference...
>> >
>> > Johannes Schindelin (1):
>> >   mingw: drop MakeMaker reference
>> >
>> >  config.mak.uname | 1 -
>> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> >
>> > base-commit: 8104ec994ea3849a968b4667d072fedd1e688642
>> > Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-146%2Fdscho%2Fno-perl-makemaker-v1
>> > Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-146/dscho/no-perl-makemaker-v1
>> > Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/146
>> 
>> Good ;-)
>> Thanks.
>
> Gentle reminder that this has not made it into `pu` yet...

Thanks.

I'll try to make it a habit not to respond to 0/1 (but instead to
1/1) as it is quite inefficient to get to 1/1 from 0/1 at least for
me X-<.

Or perhaps GGG can learn to avoid 0/1 for a single-patch topic ;-)

Thanks anyway.  Will try to apply directly on top of master.

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Drop last MakeMaker reference

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Junio,

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, 3 Mar 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> >> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Back when we stopped using MakeMaker, we forgot one reference...
> >> >
> >> > Johannes Schindelin (1):
> >> >   mingw: drop MakeMaker reference
> >> >
> >> >  config.mak.uname | 1 -
> >> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > base-commit: 8104ec994ea3849a968b4667d072fedd1e688642
> >> > Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-146%2Fdscho%2Fno-perl-makemaker-v1
> >> > Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-146/dscho/no-perl-makemaker-v1
> >> > Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/146
> >> 
> >> Good ;-)
> >> Thanks.
> >
> > Gentle reminder that this has not made it into `pu` yet...
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I'll try to make it a habit not to respond to 0/1 (but instead to
> 1/1) as it is quite inefficient to get to 1/1 from 0/1 at least for
> me X-<.

Hehe. I do have something for you there:

https://github.com/git-for-windows/build-extra/blob/master/apply-from-public-inbox.sh

-- snip --

> Or perhaps GGG can learn to avoid 0/1 for a single-patch topic ;-)

It is easier, and more consistent, to have a cover letter even then, for
things like the broader explanation of the context, the changes since the
previous iteration, and the range-diff (which would make v2, v3, v4, etc
utterly unreadable from my point of view if they were integrated into the
single patches, as I used to do with interdiffs).

> Thanks anyway.  Will try to apply directly on top of master.

Thank you!

While we're talking about "directly on top of master"... *after* it got
some review, I would love to ask for the same favor for
https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.160.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com

On the other hand, it is an old bug, I know, and it will break all CI
builds for branches that are based off of older commits, anyway. I guess
we'll need some sort of horrible hack in the git-sdk-64-minimal thing, to
allow for patching this on the CI side, without adding commits to all of
those branches. :-(

So: I made up my mind, and that MSYS2 runtime v3.x patch does not need to
be fast-tracked; it would not fix all the CI builds...

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Drop last MakeMaker reference

[Jeff King]

On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 05:27:36PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> > Or perhaps GGG can learn to avoid 0/1 for a single-patch topic ;-)
> 
> It is easier, and more consistent, to have a cover letter even then, for
> things like the broader explanation of the context, the changes since the
> previous iteration, and the range-diff (which would make v2, v3, v4, etc
> utterly unreadable from my point of view if they were integrated into the
> single patches, as I used to do with interdiffs).

Just my two cents:

As a reviewer, I generally prefer not to see a separate cover letter for
a single patch. At least for the first version (I agree it gets unwieldy
showing a range-diff after the "---" for subsequent versions, unless it
happens to be pretty short).

My reasoning is that I've noticed that many of the GGG-sent patches
often end up duplicating quite a bit of content between the cover letter
and the commit message of the patch (or worse, putting things only in
the cover letter that really could go into the commit message). That
doubles the time I spend reading and understanding the patch's rationale
(and I'm speaking subjectively here, of course; I didn't measure it).

I don't think it's an _inherent_ problem with a separate cover letter.
But something about the workflow causes people to write up over-long
cover letters. Which presumably is the fact that they're presented with
a PR textbox to write the rationale separately from when they wrote the
commit message. So they err on the side of repeating themselves, and
never see the two pieces "together" (like the reader will), which makes
the redundancy more obvious.

I'd say 99% of the time a single-patch doesn't need any cover letter
material at all. And even a multi-patch series really just needs a tl;dr
of the problem and a sketch of the solution. In both cases, the commit
messages should carry the meat.

(That's all specific to our project, of course; I know many projects
don't care about commit messages at all and expect PR descriptions to be
the first-class explanations).

-Peff