From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juergen Gross Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: Improvements to clean and distclean targets Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:06:38 +0100 Message-ID: <569E0AAE.80907@suse.com> References: <1453134445-31356-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <569D23E102000078000C825D@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <569D1692.5070709@citrix.com> <569D27A602000078000C82B6@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <569D2C9F.9070404@citrix.com> <569E052902000078000C8553@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <1453196308.6020.209.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1453196308.6020.209.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell , Jan Beulich , Andrew Cooper Cc: Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 19/01/16 10:38, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 01:43 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 18.01.16 at 19:19, wrote: >>> On 18/01/16 16:57, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 18.01.16 at 17:45, wrote: >>>>> On 18/01/16 16:41, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18.01.16 at 17:27, wrote: >>>>>>> * Move '*~' and 'core' into the find rule. >>>>>> I don't understand this part: Where in the build process do such >>>>>> get >>>>>> generated? I'm tempted to instead recommend to just drop those >>>>>> from the rm invocation... >>>>> No idea about 'core' files, but *~ are emacs backup files. >>>> But emacs should clean up after itself; this shouldn't be the job >>>> of our clean rule. >>> >>> Why? the point is to have a one-revision old version of the file to >>> hand. >> >> I guess there may be different strategies here: My editor also >> creates such named files, but deletes them as the program gets >> shut down. I.e. the one-revision old backup exists as long as the >> program is running. I can see benefits from the alternative >> model, but still it shouldn't be our scripts to clean up such backups. >> After all - what if another program used another name patter for >> its backups? Would we go clean those up then too? > > IMHO these files should be in .gitignore (so they don't clutter "git > status", AFAICT this is already done correctly) but it's not really > necessary for "make clean" (or distclean) to get rid of them, that's up to > either the editor or the user. IOW I'd be happy removing the existing > rules. What about adding a "make gitclean" which will remove all files ignored by git? It could use .gitignore (or even "git clean -dffq"). This way "make [dist]clean" could be limited to the files created by the build process on purpose. Juergen