[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: rfc: [build] Overhaul <errno.h>, <signal.h> cpp symbol extraction/ch

From: Andy Wingo
Subject: Re: rfc: [build] Overhaul <errno.h>, <signal.h> cpp symbol extraction/checking.
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:09:19 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)

Hi Thien-Thi,

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/  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.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]