On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 20:48 -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > On 2010-03-24 19:57, Gaetan Nadon wrote: > > In a perfect world, no. This was done so that platform not having the > > doc generation tool > > can still be able to read the doc in txt form. A side-effect of having a > > file both in git and > > generated is that git will refuse to rebase due to a non clean directory > > following a make. > > > > The doc generation is disabled by default, so this should not happen > > often. I think the patch you > > have submitted is the best one can do under the circumstances. > > AFAIK no other generated txt files are in git. I somehow doubt that > hw/dmx/doc/dmx.txt is more important than, say, > hw/xfree86/doc/sgml/DESIGN.txt which is also generated and not in git. > Any objections to a patch for their removal? >
Certainly not. I had submitted a patch for their removal but it was not accepted. I then submitted a patch to delete the .txt but keep a copy in git under .text. It was not accepted either. Someone somewhere will be inconvenienced by whatever option is chosen. The perfect world would where all platforms have all of the doc generation tools at the correct level. Yet another solution is to git ignore .txt. It will not interfere with normal git operations, but anyone who wants to update it (once in a blue moon) will be warned to override the ignore. http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2010-February/005480.html PS I'll review the macros for sgml. > > Yaakov > Cygwin/X > > _______________________________________________ > xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
