Re: dontdiff for 2.6.0-test4

[Jeff Garzik]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I do not think it is a tangent.  While I am not opposed to ship
> dontdiff under Documentation/* separately from the current
> mrproper implementation in the Makefile, if these two should
> name the identical set of paths, coming up with a scheme in
> which humans have to maintain just a single source and derive
> these two different usage from that single source would make
> people's life easier.  Two things that should be identical but
> have to be kept in sync by hand is simply a maintenance
> headache.

The two are maintained separately now.  This is changing a file location 
to make things a bit more convenient for dontdiff users; it's not 
radically changing anything, technically or politically.

If there are persons that consider the presence of dontdiff in the tree 
a maintenance headache, then those persons should not patch dontdiif. 
Problem solved :)  It's a file that's not going change often.


> On the other hand, if there are paths that should be in dontdiff
> that should not be cleaned by mrprper, or vice versa, then
> keeping two separately and maintaining two independently would
> absolutely makes sense.  Are there such cases?

People are thinking _way_ too hard about this.  This is just plunking a 
rarely-changing file into the kernel tree.  Even implying some sort of 
maintenance hassle is making a mountain out of a molehill.

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/