revision control of `configure'

revision control of `configure'

[Robert Millan]

  http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/grub2/configure?root=grub&view=log

Does it make sense to keep `configure' under revision control?  Almost every
commit for unrelated things tends to change the whole thing.

-- 
Robert Millan

<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)

Re: revision control of `configure'

[Pavel Roskin]

On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:57 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/grub2/configure?root=grub&view=log
> 
> Does it make sense to keep `configure' under revision control?  Almost every
> commit for unrelated things tends to change the whole thing.

I suggested it in the days of GRUB 1 but my suggestion didn't get any
support.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin

Re: revision control of `configure'

[Marco Gerards]

Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> writes:

> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:57 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>> http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/grub2/configure?root=grub&view=log
>> 
>> Does it make sense to keep `configure' under revision control?  Almost every
>> commit for unrelated things tends to change the whole thing.
>
> I suggested it in the days of GRUB 1 but my suggestion didn't get any
> support.

Personally, I do not care much.  It's annoying to make sure unwanted
changed slip in.  I have no strong opinion, but would prefer it is not
under revision control.

--
Marco

Re: revision control of `configure'

[Yoshinori K. Okuji]

On Sunday 13 January 2008 19:06, Marco Gerards wrote:
> Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> writes:
> > On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:57 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> >> http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/grub2/configure?root=grub&view=log
> >>
> >> Does it make sense to keep `configure' under revision control?  Almost
> >> every commit for unrelated things tends to change the whole thing.
> >
> > I suggested it in the days of GRUB 1 but my suggestion didn't get any
> > support.
>
> Personally, I do not care much.  It's annoying to make sure unwanted
> changed slip in.  I have no strong opinion, but would prefer it is not
> under revision control.

We should keep it. The concept is that the user should be able to build and 
test the trunk without installing too many development tools.

Nowadays, we don't use any cutting-edge features, so this might be not that 
important. But when we used Automake in GRUB Legacy, we had to deploy some 
features present only in newer versions of Automake, so the version 
requirement was very severe. This made the lives of testers uncomfortable.

Okuji