From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Ehrhardt Subject: Re: [RFC] scripts: make load-devel-config not to appear as executable Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:11:32 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1470146092-12115-1-git-send-email-christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com> <7413793.FKEpEWkE5V@xps13> <1518657.ZZVjD1fj2f@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 To: Thomas Monjalon , dev Return-path: Received: from mail-qk0-f170.google.com (mail-qk0-f170.google.com [209.85.220.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D46E12BDE for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:12:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qk0-f170.google.com with SMTP id v123so64442581qkh.3 for ; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 01:12:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1518657.ZZVjD1fj2f@xps13> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" sorry, I accidentally dropped dev list in one of my replies, readding. On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > Given that we should drop the .sh file ending as well as the > executable > > > > flag - both are not needed to source the file. > > > > > > Hmmm, it is still a file containing some shell commands, right? > > > So why removing the .sh extension? > > > > > > > I wanted to discuss on #dpdk today, but everyone seemed busy today. > > So I expected the discussion on file extension to come up on the patch > > submission - which is fine and just as it should be. > > > > My reasoning was primarily to discourage people to think to call it. > > I think it is the contrary: the executable files for users have no > extension. I totally understand that for commands in the path, but that doesn't count here. Could we have anybodies opinion as a tie breaker so I can submit a v2 without RFC then? P.S. I understand there was no objection on changing the file mode - which might be quite unobvious in the diff? -- Christian Ehrhardt Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd