From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] scripts: make load-devel-config not to appear
 as executable
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:26:33 +0100
Message-ID: <20160803092633.GB24816@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <1470146092-12115-1-git-send-email-christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
 <7413793.FKEpEWkE5V@xps13>
 <CAATJJ0L4a2fdmNzMmKvnXGeQJR4ch3ChYg1WPH142wbtvkknzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1518657.ZZVjD1fj2f@xps13>
 <CAATJJ0JJ6zAa3Wq8ejA9YFLLweV_G3F-QnOWuwM_wQxLfrQbmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66A3275D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  3 Aug 2016 11:26:36 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAATJJ0JJ6zAa3Wq8ejA9YFLLweV_G3F-QnOWuwM_wQxLfrQbmQ@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>

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 10:11:32AM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> sorry, I accidentally dropped dev list in one of my replies, readding.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > > > > Given that we should drop the .sh file ending as well as the
> > executable
> > > > > flag - both are not needed to source the file.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm, it is still a file containing some shell commands, right?
> > > > So why removing the .sh extension?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I wanted to discuss on #dpdk today, but everyone seemed busy today.
> > > So I expected the discussion on file extension to come up on the patch
> > > submission - which is fine and just as it should be.
> > >
> > > My reasoning was primarily to discourage people to think to call it.
> >
> > I think it is the contrary: the executable files for users have no
> > extension.
> 
> 
> I totally understand that for commands in the path, but that doesn't count
> here.
> Could we have anybodies opinion as a tie breaker so I can submit a v2
> without RFC then?
> 
> P.S. I understand there was no objection on changing the file mode - which
> might be quite unobvious in the diff?
> 
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>