Roland Mainz wrote:
Mike Kupfer wrote:
"Roland" == Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roland> but I fear which possible "precedent" could be constructed from
Roland> that (like "... lets rename all files which are unused from ${i}
Roland> to ${i}.unused ..." or something like that) ... ;-( ).
Clearly marking unused files as unused makes it easier for people to
come up to speed with the source. So while I concede that such a
precedent would make more work for you, it's not an entirely bad thing.
The question is (as you said earlier) where we should draw the line.
Somehow the discussion about the Makefiles has more or less worn out my
shields (e.g. renaming the Makefiles to "Makefile.att" (and remove
"probe.win32" to make Peter happy) _may_ be OK for me if this is
___explicitly___ _not_ used as precended to strip or rename any further
upstream files (violations are punished by Bel-Shamharoth himself))) but
I still fear the precedent generated by this.
I fail to see how removing source we don't (and in the case of the win32
bits will not ever) use is a problem. Is there even documentary value to
such a thing? Does their not being present really make updates more
difficult? (how?)
I don't particularly like the Makefile bits, obviously, but I can at least
somewhat understand their documentary value (though, of course, they'd have
that exact same value while not being in the tree.)
-- Rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
