Re: Questionable "cosmetic changes" commits

[Raghav Gururajan]

Hi Mark!

> Meanwhile, you've only provided a rationale for 1 out of 3 of the kinds
> of changes made in these commits.
> 
> Do you have an explanation for why you are removing comments in your
> "cosmetic changes" commits? For example, the following two commits
> remove comments that explain why 'propagated-inputs' are needed:
> 
> https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=c3264f9e100ad6aefe5216002b68f3bfdcf6be95
> https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=416b1b9f56b514677660b56992cea1c78e00f519
> 
> What's your rationale for doing this? Am I the only one here who finds
> this practice objectionable? It's not even mentioned in the commit logs.

I think the comments are useful for non-trivial cases. In these definitions, 
the inputs were propagated because they were mentioned in .pc files. 
Propagation because of pkg-config is trivial. So I removed the comments.

Regards,
RG.