Re: [PATCH] xen: Improvements to clean and distclean targets

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 11:06 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 19/01/16 10:38, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 01:43 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 18.01.16 at 19:19, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > > On 18/01/16 16:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 18.01.16 at 17:45, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 18/01/16 16:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 18.01.16 at 17:27, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > * Move '*~' and 'core' into the find rule.
> > > > > > > I don't understand this part: Where in the build process do
> > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > generated? I'm tempted to instead recommend to just drop
> > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > from the rm invocation...
> > > > > > No idea about 'core' files, but *~ are emacs backup files.
> > > > > But emacs should clean up after itself; this shouldn't be the job
> > > > > of our clean rule.
> > > > 
> > > > Why? the point is to have a one-revision old version of the file to
> > > > hand.
> > > 
> > > I guess there may be different strategies here: My editor also
> > > creates such named files, but deletes them as the program gets
> > > shut down. I.e. the one-revision old backup exists as long as the
> > > program is running. I can see benefits from the alternative
> > > model, but still it shouldn't be our scripts to clean up such
> > > backups.
> > > After all - what if another program used another name patter for
> > > its backups? Would we go clean those up then too?
> > 
> > IMHO these files should be in .gitignore (so they don't clutter "git
> > status", AFAICT this is already done correctly) but it's not really
> > necessary for "make clean" (or distclean) to get rid of them, that's up
> > to
> > either the editor or the user. IOW I'd be happy removing the existing
> > rules.
> 
> What about adding a "make gitclean" which will remove all files ignored
> by git? It could use .gitignore (or even "git clean -dffq"). This way
> "make [dist]clean" could be limited to the files created by the build
> process on purpose.

IMHO people should just use "git clean" in whichever way suits them if this
is they want.

Ian.