From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: Improvements to clean and distclean targets Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:11:06 +0000 Message-ID: <1453198266.6020.234.camel@citrix.com> References: <1453134445-31356-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <569D23E102000078000C825D@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <569D1692.5070709@citrix.com> <569D27A602000078000C82B6@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <569D2C9F.9070404@citrix.com> <569E052902000078000C8553@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <1453196308.6020.209.camel@citrix.com> <569E0AAE.80907@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <569E0AAE.80907@suse.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Juergen Gross , Jan Beulich , Andrew Cooper Cc: Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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, wrote: > > > > On 18/01/16 16:57, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > > > On 18.01.16 at 17:45, wrote: > > > > > > On 18/01/16 16:41, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 18.01.16 at 17:27, > > > > > > > > > > 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.