>From sfwnv-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org Tue Nov 13 16:59:56 2007
>> - Not that I really care, but to clarify the process: It has been
>> asserted that the requirement is that putback comments must be of the
>> form "$CRNUM $CRSYNOPSIS". So the comment "PSARC 2007/617 p7zip 4.55"
>> does not match required pattern. (Of course I'd rather see rich
>> meaningful putback comments that actually help sustaining in the
>> future.. but that's a separate discussion.)
>
>Mike said today in c-team that he didn't care one way or another. As ex-ON
>gatekeeper, I like having the info there, since it's then simple to see
>from various places that the putback was more than just a bugfix. I don't
>particularly care if it's enforced, but I'd like to do it for the bits I
>integrate.
The minimum is "bugid synopsis". You can have ARC cases if you want
too but it's not required (though you should reference the ARC case
in the bug). As for more than that, I really don't like reading stories
in the putback comments, and there certainly have been some in ON.
I think descriptions belong in the bug database (thus the need for the
bugid), arc case, or in comments in the source if it's important to
people editing the files in the future.
>> usr/src/cmd/p7zip/Makefile.sfw:
>>
>> - I'm always wary of "@find . -name core -exec rm -f {} \;"
>> Is it really dumping core during builds? If yes, why?
>
>No; that's just a copy from other makefiles -- 46 of the 64 components seem
>to do that right now. I'm not sure what the original rationale was, but if
>Mike doesn't care too much, I can remove this.
I don't have a reason for requiring it, other than that possibly
in the distant past of the ccd certain autoconf tests were dumping
core. This causes trouble because nightly searches for core files
and reports on them, so having a bunch of known core dumps isn't
particularly useful. So I probably added it to a few things long long ago
and it's merely propogated. If you remove it just make sure nothing is
dumping core :)
Mike
