From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] Wrap RUNTIME_PREFIX warning in a compile-time condition Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:10:42 +0100 Message-ID: <4B83A9A2.5080500@viscovery.net> References: <4B839282.1020605@viscovery.net> <4B83A330.5080403@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List , msysGit To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 23 11:10:53 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NjrjA-00053b-Dc for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:10:52 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752181Ab0BWKKp (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:10:45 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:23678 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751654Ab0BWKKo (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:10:44 -0500 Received: from cpe228-254.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Njrj0-00031S-IZ; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:10:42 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A29B1660F; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:10:42 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin schrieb: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Johannes Sixt wrote: >> Johannes Schindelin schrieb: >>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Johannes Sixt wrote: >>>> With this patch, individual developers can disable the warning by setting >>>> >>>> BASIC_CFLAGS += -DNO_WARN_RUNTIME_PREFIX >>>> >>>> in config.mak. >>> Would this option not prefer to be a runtime option? >> No. The warning is utterly useless IMO and extremely annoying, and the >> only reason that it still survives is because you disagree. ;-) > > I have been convinced of things before. It just takes a good argument. The good argument is: With this patch in upstream git, I have more time to spend on testing topics from pu and to write new topics on top of vanilla master because I don't need to apply my private patch all over the place (and back it out before I submit patches). Whether the option is compile-time or runtime is secondary. The option is *for me*,[*] and I prefer it compile-time. *For you* nothing changes regardless of compile-time or runtime (or do you think you would set the option?). [*] As I said, nobody else seems to complain. -- Hannes