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

From: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
To: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: Improvements to clean and distclean targets
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:06:38 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <569E0AAE.80907@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1453196308.6020.209.camel@citrix.com>

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.

Juergen