From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 01/11] Makefile: sort LIB_H list Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:01:51 -0400 Message-ID: <20120620200151.GA388@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120620182855.GA26948@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120620183008.GA30995@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vwr31u532.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Thomas Rast , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 20 22:02:00 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ShR6F-000106-2C for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:01:59 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757657Ab2FTUBz (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:01:55 -0400 Received: from 99-108-225-23.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.225.23]:39202 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754415Ab2FTUBz (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:01:55 -0400 Received: (qmail 29018 invoked by uid 107); 20 Jun 2012 20:01:55 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:01:55 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:01:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vwr31u532.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 01:00:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > This was mostly sorted already, but put things like > > "cache-tree.h" after "cache.h", even though "-" comes before > > "." (at least in the C locale). This will make it easier to > > keep the list sorted later by piping it through "sort". > > I agree this would make it easier to blindly run "sort", but I think > the result hurts scannability. Is it a good change? I don't personally see a difference, but if you do, I don't care that much about this patch. The main motive was that the next patch involved adding 10 new entries, and I didn't want to have to insert them manually into the correct sorting spots. -Peff