svn commit: r314654 - in head/cddl: lib/drti lib/libavl lib/libctf lib/libdtrace lib/libnvpair lib/libumem lib/libuutil lib/libzfs lib/libzfs_core lib/libzpool sbin/zfs sbin/zpool usr.bin/ctfconver...

Rodney W. Grimes freebsd at pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net
Sat Mar 4 20:39:40 UTC 2017


-- Start of PGP signed section.
[ Charset windows-1252 unsupported, converting... ]
> On 3/4/2017 7:20 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> >> Author: ngie
> >> Date: Sat Mar  4 11:30:04 2017
> >> New Revision: 314654
> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/314654
> >>
> >> Log:
> >>   cddl: normalize paths using SRCTOP-relative paths or :H when possible
> >>   
> >>   This simplifies make logic/output
> >>   
> >>   While here, remove bogus CFLAGS which look for headers in cddl/lib/libumem.
> >>   There aren't any source files there (just Makefiles)
> > Please again, dont intermingle other chnages when doing a tree wide sweep.
> > 
> > IMHO if you write While here, you probably should do that thing in a 
> > seperate commit, unless this is a single thing your touching in a single
> > commit.
> > 
> > It is much easier to glue 2 commits togeather than seperate 1 that
> > changes 2 things.
> > 
> 
> Agreed.  There were also various comment changes in here.  This is why
> git is nice, you can git add -p and stage multiple commits before
> pushing.  git-svn handles this fine.
> 
> > 
> > It is also still not clear to me that this was adeqautly disccussed as I
> > only saw 2 +'s for staying relative and no one +ing to move forward with this.
> 
> Where is this discussion?  The only one I can find is
> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D9207 which seems to have a consensus of
> moving to SRCTOP and :H vs '../..'.

There was a short discussion here on the commiters list with some others
expressing the prefered the relative status of things even though it
clutters logs.  

D9207 touches 15 files.. I would not consider that an adaquate review that
is actually going to change near every Makefile in the tree, and change what
people have been looking and at working with for 30 years.   

I dont think any differntial that only had 3 or 4 people involed that
is going to effect all developers is adaquate either.  Tree wide sweeping
changes should be discussed far more widely.

Idk, maybe I am to personally attached to the relative paths.. cause I
had a major part in helping them all to work, or perhaps its my been 
burned by absolute paths that had to be reworked too many times in
my past.  But my gutt is telling me this change is Bad(tm).

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org


More information about the svn-src-all mailing list