From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] scripts: make load-devel-config not to appear
	as executable
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 15:19:14 +0200
Message-ID: <12922853.QikypEaL8H@xps13>
References: <1470146092-12115-1-git-send-email-christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
 <20160803092633.GB24816@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <CAATJJ0Lbn6toSntTMdbx6C2uW3+3Pm1NN03NDHRQmTw4BYV29w@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
To: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com (mail-wm0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9162A2BF7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  3 Aug 2016 15:19:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id q128so448083248wma.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 06:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAATJJ0Lbn6toSntTMdbx6C2uW3+3Pm1NN03NDHRQmTw4BYV29w@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-08-03 11:42, Christian Ehrhardt:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Bruce Richardson <
> bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Definitely no objection on the file mode change.
> >
> > For the dropping of the .sh extension, I don't think it matters much.
> > However,
> > given that .sh files are generally scripts to be executed, I think
> > dropping the
> > extension will reduce confusion.
> >
> > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> >
> 
> Thank you Bruce
> 
> @Thomas - given we are 2:1 now, the patch would stay as-is.

:D

> Do you want me to resubmit as-is but without RFC tag or would you accept it
> as already submitted?

I will apply it as is.