Re: dontdiff for 2.6.0-test4

Jeff Garzik
2003-09-02T02:47:16Z

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I do not think it is a tangent. While I am not opposed to ship
> dontdiff under Documentation/* separately from the current
> mrproper implementation in the Makefile, if these two should
> name the identical set of paths, coming up with a scheme in
> which humans have to maintain just a single source and derive
> these two different usage from that single source would make
> people's life easier. Two things that should be identical but
> have to be kept in sync by hand is simply a maintenance
> headache.

The two are maintained separately now. This is changing a file location
to make things a bit more convenient for dontdiff users; it's not
radically changing anything, technically or politically.

If there are persons that consider the presence of dontdiff in the tree
a maintenance headache, then those persons should not patch dontdiif.
Problem solved :) It's a file that's not going change often.

> On the other hand, if there are paths that should be in dontdiff
> that should not be cleaned by mrprper, or vice versa, then
> keeping two separately and maintaining two independently would
> absolutely makes sense. Are there such cases?

People are thinking _way_ too hard about this. This is just plunking a
rarely-changing file into the kernel tree. Even implying some sort of
maintenance hassle is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Jeff