From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:59643 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753348Ab1KQWzB (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:55:01 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e9.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:55:00 -0500 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id pAHMsvJZ254406 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:54:57 -0500 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id pAHMssVt020617 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:54:57 -0200 Message-ID: <1321570492.25715.45.camel@work-vm> Subject: Re: [PATCH] kconfig: Add merge_config.sh script From: john stultz Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:54:52 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <1321567131.25715.32.camel@work-vm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnaud Lacombe Cc: Andrew Morton , Sam Ravnborg , gthelen@google.com, tartler@cs.fau.de, Dmitry Fink , Darren Hart , Eric B Munson , Bruce Ashfield , Michal Marek , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:44 -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM, john stultz wrote: > > Hey Andrew, > > I've tried sending this via Michal a few times, but haven't heard much > > back. So I wanted to check if you would consider merging it via your > > tree, or if you had any suggestions of who would be better to > > review/merge this. > > > One of the worry I would have is that the script is merging config > blindly, ie. there is no dependency checking done. I have some some > work-in-progress to help resolving this, but still lots of thought to > be implemented. So the script actually does warn you if a specified option is dropped due to missing dependencies or if the option is removed. So, I guess could you clarify your concern a bit more? thanks -john