From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SDCA1-0004hb-Mc for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:00:53 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2T9ppK7029309 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:51:51 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27924-07 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:51:47 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2T9pfAD029303 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:51:41 +0100 Message-ID: <1333014700.14983.6.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:51:40 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20120328232908.GA4080@bill-the-cat> References: <1332524132-24689-1-git-send-email-trini@ti.com> <1332753313.28414.91.camel@ted> <20120326162531.GD21518@bill-the-cat> <1332780976.28414.130.camel@ted> <20120328185458.GB32193@denix.org> <1332969104.28414.206.camel@ted> <20120328232908.GA4080@bill-the-cat> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] qemu.inc: Use '=' for IMAGE_FSTYPES X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:00:53 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 16:29 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:11:44PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 14:54 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 05:56:16PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 09:25 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > > So, what is the subtle difference between += that we started with and =+ that > > > you recommended at the end? I realize those are for append and prepend, but > > > are they handled any different? Was your recommendation to use =+ at the end, > > > instead of += that was used originally, based on some specifics? Thanks. > > > > I'm using += and =+ interchangeably. The contrast was with ?= which I > > argued against. Order in this case doesn't matter and I have no > > preference over += or =+, it simply doesn't matter. > > So I guess I'll spin everything one more time and drop the meta-intel > version and we'll just use += since that's the common one. Sounds good. Sorry about the churn on this one, I thought it was clear += and =+ were equivalent in this context. Cheers, Richard