From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: Improvements to clean and distclean targets Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:22:07 +0000 Message-ID: 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1453196308.6020.209.camel@citrix.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: Ian Campbell Cc: Andrew Cooper , Jan Beulich , Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:38 AM, 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. As an emacs user, I agree with this. The purpose of "make clean" IMO is be to make sure that the *build* operates cleanly (i.e., doesn't end up using any output generated from a previous build), not to get rid of extraneous random files that don't affect the build. "git clean" is the proper tool for cleaning out the tree for git commands. -George