From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D4CC1F66F for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 01:58:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732625AbgKFB64 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2020 20:58:56 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:55686 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730414AbgKFB6z (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2020 20:58:55 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D342F103C9A; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 20:58:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=FW+wtnLUth9b+/hBD04lUg9oueE=; b=RXyT4R VqcQqeMgQPGtvILr2Nb4xCBsnMXVs+u0aPjch77lh43AV8YPcqGts4Jq/K8u09N3 kSvP0adyiZ6e5dfp+CMuwpMezbVcfLqKOGnH3CppkfW7omU7OD5fqeqlwltW05LM aPWi4U4sd0K+ysSAYivJjD3ID+7LD/tqQ6TPs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=rFn5PY1FJCYezIr9AOKCN/fUqGT5451I j05WWsHApevTJqEB8onvRdQvmWE5AKLlre58FhTgWHDjvVMTNT86bUv2mvbLWDGq IagnF++R/QwD0JuosmTyMcFt9/iq2N3q7C1ZdUZVeoSCBgDdwjSRHAIsThkjRec/ x1lrcClYf7M= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC92F103C99; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 20:58:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 21124103C98; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 20:58:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Ramsay Jones Cc: GIT Mailing-list Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] Makefile: don't delete dist tarballs directly by name References: <48fdd198-93ad-7282-27e6-9a0c6de93067@ramsayjones.plus.com> <0cbe821b-092d-a5f9-e2ab-13a3c01e9a02@ramsayjones.plus.com> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 17:58:49 -0800 In-Reply-To: <0cbe821b-092d-a5f9-e2ab-13a3c01e9a02@ramsayjones.plus.com> (Ramsay Jones's message of "Fri, 6 Nov 2020 01:44:18 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9DD4B354-1FD3-11EB-A7FD-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Ramsay Jones writes: > I did have a patch #9 that moved the removal of the tarballs from > the 'clean' target to the 'distclean' target (that is move the new > 'iterate over the dist-tars file' code). However, I wasn't convinced > that it was a better place for it. I am not either, other than "things created by 'make distX' cleaned by 'make distclean'---that sounds consistent" ;-). > Also, just moving the new removal code would not alter the concerns > about it that you express above. So, we need to address that either > way. "make distclean" can still depend on GIT-VERSION-FILE and your daily cleaning needs can use "make clean" that cleans only the files that can be cleaned without knowing what GIT_VERSION is, no? That way, we do not have to use dist-tars file at all, no?