| Message ID | 1451249086-24341-1-git-send-email-yann.morin.1998@free.fr |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
Yann, On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:44:46 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > From: Karoly Kasza <kaszak@gmail.com> > > After using "make safedefconfig", a defconfig file appears which is an > extract of the .config file. When running git, it incorrectly detects it as a > source code change. > > Add /defconfig to .gitignore. > > Signed-off-by: Karoly Kasza <kaszak@gmail.com> > [yann.morin.1998@free.fr: do not remove on distclean] > Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> I continue to question whether this is the right thing to do. "defconfig" is really only the default name, and it can be changed to anything by changing BR2_DEFCONFIG. So should we gitignore the default name, but not any other name? I'm for the principle of least surprise, and I would personally find it odd that we gitignore the default name only. Since we can't gitignore all defconfigs, I'd prefer to not gitignore any of them. Best regards, Thomas
Thomas, All, On 2015-12-29 09:19 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: > On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:44:46 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > From: Karoly Kasza <kaszak@gmail.com> > > > > After using "make safedefconfig", a defconfig file appears which is an > > extract of the .config file. When running git, it incorrectly detects it as a > > source code change. > > > > Add /defconfig to .gitignore. > > > > Signed-off-by: Karoly Kasza <kaszak@gmail.com> > > [yann.morin.1998@free.fr: do not remove on distclean] > > Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> > > I continue to question whether this is the right thing to do. > "defconfig" is really only the default name, and it can be changed to > anything by changing BR2_DEFCONFIG. So should we gitignore the default > name, but not any other name? > > I'm for the principle of least surprise, and I would personally find it > odd that we gitignore the default name only. Since we can't gitignore > all defconfigs, I'd prefer to not gitignore any of them. Yes, and I guess with the recent ML issues you did not catch my reply in the initial thread; http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2015-December/148452.html And since I did respin that patch before you replied there, this is now moot. At that time, that patch did not appear on Pathwork when I wanted to mark it reject. I guess it is now marked Rejected in Patchwork? ;-) Regards, Yann E. MORIN.
Yann, On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:05:13 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Yes, and I guess with the recent ML issues you did not catch my reply in > the initial thread; > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2015-December/148452.html > > And since I did respin that patch before you replied there, this is now > moot. At that time, that patch did not appear on Pathwork when I wanted > to mark it reject. I guess it is now marked Rejected in Patchwork? ;-) I think you can mark it as rejected indeed. Thanks, Thomas
Thomas, Károly, All, On 2015-12-29 18:07 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: > On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:05:13 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > Yes, and I guess with the recent ML issues you did not catch my reply in > > the initial thread; > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2015-December/148452.html > > > > And since I did respin that patch before you replied there, this is now > > moot. At that time, that patch did not appear on Pathwork when I wanted > > to mark it reject. I guess it is now marked Rejected in Patchwork? ;-) > > I think you can mark it as rejected indeed. Done. Thanks! Regards, Yann E. MORIN.
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index bb02d9f..66f5ac1 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ /.config.old /..config.tmp /.config +/defconfig *.depend *.o /*.patch