[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: rfc: [build] Overhaul <errno.h>, <signal.h> cpp symbol extraction/ch
Re: rfc: [build] Overhaul <errno.h>, <signal.h> cpp symbol extraction/checking.
Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:09:19 +0200
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
On Fri 25 Jun 2010 14:07, Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> writes:
> () Andy Wingo <address@hidden>
> () Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:43:07 +0200
> Would you mind sending patches using git-format-patch? It's easier to
> reply inline that way :-)
> Ah, ok. I was under the impression that the preferred way was to post
> a link (to a commit) so that whoever wants to pull can do so, thus
> avoiding big email messages. Isn't that the "git way"?
I guess there are many git ways :) Linux uses both, I think. For review
purposes though, inline mails work best for me. I'm happy to change if
there is a better way.
> I don't really understand this patch, or the current makefile foo thb,
> and would appreciate an explanation.
> I've just pushed ‘ttn/janitor’ (and deleted ‘ttn/misc-maint’), including
> the patch below, reformulated (slightly) to add a bit of explanation to
> libguile/Makefile.am. Does that help? I omit explaining the old way
> there, but here's a summary: "essentially (the basic approach) like the
> new way , but with more state (files, temporary and permanent) and with
> unnecessary modularity".
Ah, thank you for this explanation, and that inline to the patch. Feel
free to push this patch to master.