Re: [PATCH 6/7] Small changes

[Xavier Maillard <zedek@gnu.org>]

   From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

   Xavier Maillard <zedek@gnu.org> writes:

   > * Makefile: add git-blame as a candidate to the
   >   byte-compilation. Change the function to call to byte-compile.

   Could we have a bit more detailed description on the latter
   change?

Sure.

byte-compile-file is an interactive function.
batch--byte-compile is a batch function.

First function would be (better) called when using emacs in its
"interactive" form -ie. M-x byte-compile-file RET.

batch-byte-compile is reserved for batching use (no interaction
with the user).

So in non interactive mode, this is prefered way to do things.

   Explaining why something needed a change is the point of a
   commit log message.  Summarizing what got changed and how is
   good but that is secondary, because anybody can see that you
   changed the handcrafted --eval to -f by running "git show", even
   if you did not have the above proposed log message.

Sorry Iam not "good" at commit log :/ 

   What is left unsaid is _why_ it is better to use single dash
   form of "-batch" and -f form instead of handcrafted --eval, and
   the proposed log message does not clarify the reason.

First reason is given by C-h f batch-byte-compile RET which
gives:

batch-byte-compile is an autoloaded Lisp function in `bytecomp'.
(batch-byte-compile &optional noforce)

Run `byte-compile-file' on the files remaining on the command line.
Use this from the command line, with `-batch';
it won't work in an interactive Emacs.
Each file is processed even if an error occurred previously.
For example, invoke "emacs -batch -f batch-byte-compile $emacs/ ~/*.el".
If noforce is non-nil, don't recompile a file that seems to be

Second reason is "by habit" :)


Hope Ihave been clear. If you want me to submit something again
from these patches, please tell how to do so (and modify what
Ihave changed).

-- 
Xavier