From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: Improvements to clean and distclean targets Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:43:05 -0700 Message-ID: <569E052902000078000C8553@prv-mh.provo.novell.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <569D2C9F.9070404@citrix.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrew Cooper Cc: Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> 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? Jan