From: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
To: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com>
Cc: "git\@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] Makefile: add missing phony target
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:43:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <vpqsi392dpl.fsf@anie.imag.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+EOSB=a-qWP2-UfYJjPjSr8DD1ER39_rJPc8HAxV5qr+gw1qw@mail.gmail.com> (Elia Pinto's message of "Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:13:11 +0100")
Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com> writes:
> 2015-12-11 15:40 GMT+01:00 Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>:
>> Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> This is the second version of this patch.
>>> Added the corrections suggested by Matthieu Moy ($gmane/282221)
>>
>> Sorry, but my main concern was that the patch could not be reviewed in
>> good conditions as-is, and I think it still cannot be. It's very hard to
>> spot which .PHONY rules you're adding and which are just code movement.
>> You should really split this into one "code movement" patch and one
>> "actual bugfix" patch. Or someone with better eyes than me should review
>> the patch ;-).
>
> Ok. No problem. I thought there was no need for a patch so simple. But ok.
The point is: once a tricky bug was found in a patch (and I did on v1),
you cannot claim anymore that it is "so simple". If it was that simple,
you would have cought it before sending.
>>> @@ -2215,6 +2221,7 @@ test-svn-fe$X: vcs-svn/lib.a
>>> test-%$X: test-%.o GIT-LDFLAGS $(GITLIBS)
>>> $(QUIET_LINK)$(CC) $(ALL_CFLAGS) -o $@ $(ALL_LDFLAGS) $(filter %.o,$^) $(filter %.a,$^) $(LIBS)
>>>
>>> +.PHONY: check_sha1 $(SP_OBJ) sparse check check-sha1
>>> check-sha1:: test-sha1$X
>>> ./test-sha1.sh
>>>
>>> @@ -2224,7 +2231,6 @@ $(SP_OBJ): %.sp: %.c GIT-CFLAGS FORCE
>>> $(QUIET_SP)cgcc -no-compile $(ALL_CFLAGS) $(EXTRA_CPPFLAGS) \
>>> $(SPARSE_FLAGS) $<
>>>
>>> -.PHONY: sparse $(SP_OBJ)
>>> sparse: $(SP_OBJ)
>>
>> This "sparse" movement looks again contradictory with the goal announced
>> in the commit message.
> The idea was to group all the phony before all the target, not to put
> the phony necessarily before the closest target. but ok
I personally prefer the old way. I have no strong objection to changing,
but currently your commit message says "Also put the .PHONY declaration
immediately before the target declaration", which is clearly not a
justification to do this change.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-11 15:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-11 14:22 [PATCHv2] Makefile: add missing phony target Elia Pinto
2015-12-11 14:40 ` Matthieu Moy
2015-12-11 15:13 ` Elia Pinto
2015-12-11 15:43 ` Matthieu Moy [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=vpqsi392dpl.fsf@anie.imag.fr \
--to=matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitter.spiros@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox